Monday, 8 September 2008
What I find very interesting is the number of people who are almost outraged with the 50D. Online forums are full of people complaining. Never mind that this is the most advanced camera that Canon have produced with that sensor size and at that price point. The biggest area of contention seems to be it's "poor" high ISO noise characteristics. The comparison is with Nikon (who until very recently lagged Canon in terms of image quality quite significantly).
For me this is simply not an issue. The high ISO performance of the 50D looks at first glance to be at least as good as the 20D, and probably significantly better. I came to Cannon from a Minolta A2 which had significantly worse noise performance than the Canon. With the Minolta I only ever shot at ISO64. ISO 100 was usable and anything beyond that was a waste of time. With the Canon I routinely shoot at ISO400 for equivalent quality and have had decent results at ISO800. Despite that, I still think that some of the best ever shots I have taken were with the Minolta. Actually two of my favourite shots were taken with a two mega-pixel point-and-shoot.
With a significant investment in Canon lenses a move to Nikon is simply not on the cards for me, but even if it was, I probably wouldn't move. Why? My current camera is already a far better picture taking machine than I have ever had. It is more than capable of getting excellent results under most circumstances. And Canon are not that far behind. Shooting real world pictures most people probably wouldn't even notice the difference.
Sometimes I think people get so bound down in the technology - they forget that photography is art.