Talk:Canon EOS 50D

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

FPS

The 40D and 50D both are 6.3 FPS cameras. Previously advertising law allowed the manufacturers to round to the nearest half, now it has to be to the nearest tenth.

See the following: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page13.asp

Thalagyrt (talk)

Interesting, thanks for bringing this up. FPS rounding is not included in the False advertising article, would be interesting to have it there, but I couldn't find a good source. Maybe someone else can do better. Rror (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noise

This article is polluted with the myth of small pixels causing more noise. In reality, at image-level 50D produces as little or less noise than 40D at all ISOs.

When it comes to noise, sensel size is irrelevant - it is the sensor size that counts.

The reason for this myth is the current habit of inspecting images on computer screens at 100% magnification. The problem with this method is that when comparing sensors with different pixel counts the comparison is not scientificly proper as for example in the case of comparin 40D - a 10Mp camera to 50D - a 15Mp camera, looking at 100% zoom we're actually comparing 10Mp sensor of 40D to a 10Mp crop of the 15Mp sensor of 50D! Effectively we're throwing awat 1/3 of the sensor of 50D in this kind of comparison.

Someone with better skills at the English language than me, should fix the articly. --88.195.100.60 (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely there are some statements in this article, that would make one wonder if this article is more about the 40D vs. 50D, rather than just the 50D. Your statement is true, viewing at 100% has little value unless one intents to crop their photo, or print at a large size. If one reduces the full size 50D photo to the same resolution as the 40D, the 50D photograph is better quality overall. However the statements made in the article are true, the 50D does have more noise than 40D at higher ISO, on a per-pixel comparison. And these statements have been referenced with reliable sources. I think that at least there should be less mention of the 40D in this article. But statements on IQ of 50D vs 40D should stay, as this issue is well known and noteworthy. Nebrot (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to e.g. DxO (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Insights/More-pixels-offsets-noise!) the increase of pixels is better for the overall image/picture quality even if the noise is a little higher at the pixel level. This article cites the D50 review on DPR too much to give an objective, dare I say a true, description of this camera (at least in my opinion).77.224.104.38 (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for the deletion of the last paragraph!

The very last (as of now) paragraph seems redundant, almost as if it is leftovers from old paragraphs that has bewen incorporated in the text above. It doesn't add anything new but rather gives a confusing appearance. In short: Quality lenses will benefit any camera! The texts suggests that it is the resolving power of the sensor that calls for better lenses (it is not... it is better PICTURES that calls for better equipment.. not top mention the photographer ;-) )

The noise part is also mentioned above and this, the last sentence, is to go too much into signal/noise theory to be understandable for the reader, not to say up-right false.

So if nobody has any objections it will be deleted!! (??) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.224.104.38 (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly disagree with the proposal of deletion, there are better options. - The facts are clear that the 50D does have more per pixel noise than the 40D. The biggest problem with describing this fact, is that there is a difference on how people perceive this, in regard to and what real impact it has. So there has been a slow edit war going on. Often what happens with such cases, is that the dust settles, and what is left can be very confusing. The statement on lenses and pixel resolution should be deleted, it does not need to be there, and does nothing to describe th topic of image quality and noise. There should be a clear description on exactly what impacts, the sensor on the 50D has, in regard to quality and noise of the image that results from it. Internal wiki links to will help with any confusion a reader might have in technical description. Just because the text cannot be understood by some, does not mean it should be removed. If you think the information in the section is false, please provide a source that proves that. I don't think the section should be deleted, it does need to be edited, to be clear and accurate. Nebrot (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement overdue ?

looking at the timeline for 10D,20D,30D,40D, the 50D has been 'current' for a while, any news on a 60D ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.56.196 (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LCD screen

What about changing "LCD screen" to just "LCD"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.6.199.202 (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]