dslr.ws

This was posted a little while back, but I hadn’t gotten around to reading through it until today: it’s DPReview’s Sony A900 review.

They point out a few areas where the Sony A700 has better specs than the A900, which are all related to burst shooting capacities. For example, the A700 can shoot 18 frames of RAW in burst mode before pausing, while the A900 only does 12. This is no big surprise given the resolution increase between the two cameras (12.2 megapixels to 24.6 megapixels) and the much larger amounts of data that the A900 needs to move around with each picture taken. In every other specification measurement, the A90 is a clear improvement over the A700, except for the slightly larger size and heavier weight (895g with battery for the A900 versus 768g with battery for the A700.)

DPReview brings out a big wheelbarrow full of sarcasm with the choice quote, “Once again Sony has included that professional photography essential, the Memory Stick Duo slot.” They also helpfully describe the Memory Stick slot as “a small, narrow place to keep dust.” Who knows what Sony was thinking with putting Memory Stick Duo slots on their “professional” level cameras, other than their usual “we’re going to keep pushing our useless proprietary format long past the point where we become the laughing stock of the industry.” See also ATRAC.

Like other reviewers, DPReview loved the A900′s viewfinder:

Aside from the headline-grabbing sensor there’s no doubt that the single feature Sony decided to concentrate on with the Alpha 900 was the viewfinder (even the design looks like the entire camera was built around the prism). And what a viewfinder it is; with 100% field of view and an incredibly bright, clear image it sets a new standard for this class of camera that I can’t see being improved upon in the near future. The eye relief is a little tight (you need to get pretty close to see the entire engulfing view), but boy is it worth it. Start using the Alpha 900 ‘in the field’ and you soon forget about fripperies like live view and simply enjoy the experience of a truly involving photographic experience.

They also pick on the new top panel LCD display as being relatively useless, although they combine that with praise for the “superb interface” on the main LCD screen. But it does seem like a silly feature. People who complain about cheap DSLRs that don’t have a separate status LCD screen want one because it provides constantly available information at a glance while shooting, and the A900′s status LCD just doesn’t manage to pull off that function (since almost no information is always there, forcing you to press a button to temporarily display one of the limited bits of information they let you use the display for.) Using such a tiny display also means the information is much more confusing than any other DSLR I’ve ever seen:

The fact that the display appears to be based on a dime store digital watch also means that the values are displayed in what is occasionally rather crude and far from immediately obvious manner (High speed continuous, for example, appears as ‘oooH’) – there are very few icons

That sounds more like the LCD display you’d get on one of those $15 keychain digicams than what you’d expect to find on a top-of-the-line digital SLR.

DPReview managed to get tremendously better battery life than Luminous Landscape did intheir A900 field review; LL was getting around 250 shots per charge, while DPReview says they were right in the ballpark of the CIPA standard-rated 880 shots that Sony’s specs claim. I’m not sure what would cause such a huge discrepancy, unless Luminous Landscape had a faulty battery, or using the battery in slightly colder outdoor temperatures (they reported using it between freezing and 65 degrees Fahrenheit) has a much larger impact than expected on battery life. My unfounded guess would be the former.

One extra-interesting element of their review is a look at the Image Data Converter SR 3.0 software that’s included with the camera for RAW conversion. This looks like one horrible piece of software. A quick glance at 100% crops of a resolution chart shot shows that in-camera JPEGs look much better than RAW files converted with the IDC software; their software results in tons of moire artifacts and blurring of the highest frequency lines on the test chart. The JPEGs show much milder moire artifacts. They also compare it with Adobe Camera Raw, which, as expected, beats IDC and JPEG at the resolution chart. Other tests show that IDC applies more sharpening than plain JPEGs or ACR, which generally isn’t what you want out of your RAW converter.

For high ISO noise, they find slightly higher noise levels in the A900 than in the cameras they compared it to (the Nikon D700, Canon 5D, and Canon 1Ds Mark III) up to ISO 400. At higher ISOs the difference becomes more marked, with Sony throwing more and more noise reduction at the image to try to reduce noise, sacrificing detail to the ISO Gods in the process. “By ISO 3200 the result is a blurry mess with little fine detail – with the added insult of visible chroma noise in the shadow areas. I think it’s fair to say that ISO 3200 and 6400 are firmly in the ‘emergency use only’ bracket (of course with 24MP to play with you shouldn’t have many problems at small print sizes).” They also point out that the A900 just has a very noisy sensor, and so the difference between NR turned off and NR turned to the lowest level is huge; there’s not nearly as much difference between low NR and high NR.

Thankfully, it looks like Sony hasn’t done the same thing that they did with the original A700 firmware, where they were doing noise reduction in RAW files to try to deal with how noisy the A700′s sensor was. They can’t be completely sure, but DPReview’s testing makes it look likely that the A900 gives you a true RAW file, at least from the standpoint of unwanted noise reduction.

Comparing noise to other cameras, in RAW mode:

Unsurprisingly the D700′s larger pixels give it a distinct advantage here, and show clearly that at higher ISO settings it’s not all about pixel counts — the ISO 6400 output retains noticeably more detail than the Alpha 900 with visibly lower noise. But it’s also worth noting that at ISO 1600 the three cameras are broadly comparable (Sony has more chroma noise but also the most resolution). At ISO 3200 Canon shows that its in-camera JPEG processing does a far better job at removing noise without destroying information (and that the actual noise levels in raw are lower than Sony’s).

And wow, 6400 ISO is really, really bad on the A900. It would be an interesting experiment to figure out how large you could print a 6400 ISO photo before the noise became visible. At some small photo size, the noise should be able to be averaged together with surrounding pixels so that you can’t see it. The question is, how small would it need to be? This should even be able to be simulated in Photoshop by shrinking the image until noise become invisible, but you’d have to work out the DPI and size in inches that give you a nice, sharp photo at that resolution. Maybe when I get a free hour I’ll play around with it.

DPReview joins the other reviews I’ve seen in stating that the A900 gives you an absolutely amazing dynamic range: “All the lab results tied in with our observations when using the A900 in the field; JPEG dynamic range (and particularly highlight range in the region over ‘mid gray’) is excellent, and there’s even more in the raw files if you need it. Impressive stuff.”

Overall, they really liked the image quality of the A900:

Overall there’s really little to complain about here – and much to like – and I’d only caution concern if you regularly intend to shoot at ISO 1600 or higher. 100% comparisons are a valid and useful way to check out the absolute limits of a camera’s resolving power, but in my book the superb tonality, appealing color and surprisingly reliable metering / focus systems count for a lot and mean the Alpha 900′s output at lower ISO settings is amongst the best we’ve seen.

Interestingly, they come to a different conclusion than the Luminous Landscape review. LL predicts that the A900 will put a huge dent in the Nikon D3x sales, and be one of the top cameras in its target market along with the Canon 5DMkII. DPReview, however, doesn’t think it’ll break out of the Konica/Minolta faithful:

In conclusion this is, more than anything else at this end of the market, a true photographer’s camera, with at least one totally unique feature (the Super SteadyShot stabilization) and one that offers the best viewfinder and highest nominal resolution (and the lowest ‘cost per megapixel, incidentally) in its class. It’s capable of stunning results at up to ISO 400 (and is fine at ISO 800-1600 as long as you’re not printing posters), and it is incredibly fast and responsive in use. If Sony had managed to keep the price nearer to the $2000 mark (even if this meant fewer megapixels) I think it would be flying off the shelves. As it stands it will, I fear, struggle to make a serious impression on anyone other than the Sony/Minolta faithful. One thing is clear, however: anyone who thinks a consumer electronics giant can’t make a heavyweight photographic tool is seriously misguided.

As long as you take into account our reservations about the high ISO image quality (which we’d more easily forgive on a camera that wasn’t the best part of $3000), the Alpha 900 is a camera that just, by the skin of its teeth, offers enough to gain our highest award.

It’ll be interesting to see what actually happens with this camera, which is certainly a unique and groundbreaking one for Sony.

Just a few days after Michael from Luminous Landscape posted that he was canceling his Nikon D3x preorder because the high price tag just wasn’t worth what he would get out of the camera, he’s posted a field review of the new Sony Alpha A900. He manages to avoid mentioning the D3x by name in his post announcing the review, but certainly is taking a shot at Nikon’s pricing:

Does the thought of a full-frame, 24 Megapixel camera with a large bright viewfinder and the ablilty to shoot 5 FPS in raw with a deep buffer make you salivate? Does the thought of having to spend $8000 for a camera like this have you weak in the knees?

Well, one alternative is the Sony A900, which started shipping in most markets within the past few weeks. It retails for under US $3,000, offers excellent image quality, and access to some great Zeiss glass as well as a large range of Sony and Konica / Minolta lenses.

In case you’ve missed other news about it, the Sony A900 is a 24.6 megapixel full-frame DSLR, and marks Sony’s entry into the big leagues—as in, big sensors with big megapixels—something formerly dominated by Canon and Nikon. Well, let’s not kid ourselves; Canon and Nikon still dominate. But Sony is at least stepping up to give them a good fight, and early reports are that the A900 might just be the perfect camera to do that with.

Luminous Landscapes reports poor battery life, getting only 260 shots in 65 degree F weather, and only 230 shots when shooting outside around the freezing point.

They seem to have mixed feelings about the A900′s image stabilization system. Unlike Nikon and Canon’s systems, Sony’s is on the sensor rather than on individual lenses. The obvious advantage to this is that every lens on the A900 will be stabilized without extra cost for those lenses; Canon and Nikon shooters have to pay a premium for IS lenses, and lower-end lenses won’t have that feature. On the other hand, the review mentions the comfort level of seeing the scene stabilized in the viewfinder when you take the picture, something that you can’t do with sensor-based image stabilization. They also report that, unlike Canon and Nikon, Sony’s IS doesn’t automatically turn off when you use the camera on a tripod, and the reviewer mentions that he often either forgot to turn it off manually when using a tripod, or forgot to turn it back on afterward.

Some people may miss live view and a video recording mode on the A900, especially when you compare the A900 with Canon’s 5D Mark II, another full-frame camera in the same price range that has fantastic HD video recording capabilities.

They also have complaints about the memory card capabilities. The A900 gives you dual memory card slots, like many other high-end DSLRs, but in a far more annoying way. On cameras like the Canon 1Ds series and the Nikon D3, you get CF and SD slots, and can configure them to do things like save RAW images on one card and JPEGs on the other, save the same images to both, or use one as an overflow when the other fills up.

With the A900, however, you get a CF and a Memory Stick Duo slot. In case you haven’t seen Memory Stick Duo anywhere before, welcome to the wonderful proprietary world of Sony. Sony loves doing this stuff — ATRAC audio, Memory Sticks, etc. They’ll come up with something weird and proprietary when there’s a perfectly good alternative that everyone else uses (e.g., MP3 and CF or SD) and then doggedly keep using their proprietary format on their devices no matter how much it’s hurting their sales. At least the A900 has a CF slot, unlike cheaper Sony digicams that will force you to use Memory Stick Duos and nothing else. But even if you give in and get a Memory Stick Duo (I happen to have some for my PSP, so it’s not as painful for me as it might be for someone with no other use for them) you still don’t have much flexibility: you can select one card or the other as the target for where images are saved, and that’s it. No overflow, no flexibility at all. Maybe they figured that nobody’s going to bother with Memory Sticks, and so there’s no point in programming in any decent dual-slot features?

Keeping with the unnecessarily proprietary trend, Sony keeps Minolta’s proprietary flash mount hot shoe. As someone who rarely uses a flash, this bugs me more on principle than on real world usability, but the reviewer was much more offended:

Sony gets marked down big-time for sticking with Minolta’s proprietary flash mount hot shoe. If it was just a matter of being stuck using their proprietary flash it would be one thing, but not being able to use a flash trigger for studio use, such as a Pocket Wizard, is a real failing. Sony does have an adaptor for $129, but it really shouldn’t be necessary to have to purchase something like this and have one more bulky battery-operated gizmo to keep track of. It also means that the camera lacks a regular shoe, useful for bubble levels, flags and such. Boo on Sony. Bad design decision./blockquote>

Luminous Landscape also wishes that the A900 had the ability to record audio notes, since the reviewer often uses that. Obviously, this varies from person to person. I have never used this feature on any camera I have.

While the A900 does have a top LCD panel for showing settings, unlike some of the cheaper DSLRs on the market that force you to use the rear LCD for everything, they don’t really show very much information. You can see the status of a few settings (drive mode, exposure compensation, white balance, and ISO) by pressing a corresponding button near the display, but otherwise you just get battery level and number of frames remaining. For everything else, you have to use the rear LCD just like on cheaper cameras. That’s a pet peeve of mine, though less of a big deal for this review.

The A900 includes an infrared remote control, although it’s a lot less useful than it could have been:

Interestingly the remote also has a shutter release mode so it can be used as a wireless remote when shooting. Potentially very cool. But only potentially .

First of all, the sensor is in front of the camera (in the hand grip). This obviously means that it only works when you’re standing in front of the camera, not behind it, not the usual place for photographers to stand. Duhh! (Indoors in a small room the IR may work since the signal may be reflected, but outdoors this is never the case).

Another annoying aspect, given how useful this could have been, us that there is also a 2 second self timer release, but there’s no way to combine this with mirror lock up, since these are found on mutually exclusive settings in the Drive menu setting.

Come on Sony! This is almost as bad as the design faux pas usually found from the other guys. Doesn’t anyone ever actually ask photographers to field test these things before committing to production? The difference between good and great is when you sweat the small stuff, and this is all small stuff.

Unfortunately, it sounds like noise is much more of an issue than with most other DSLRs, which makes it sound like Sony might be trying to get more pixels out of the sensor than it can realistically handle. The A900′s base ISO is 200 (ISO 100 is useless, it just reduces dynamic range but has the sensor producing as much noise as ISO 200) and Luminous Landscape reports that even that isn’t completely noiseless. ISO 400 is “fine” but only when compared with cameras from 2-3 years ago, and he expects the Canon 5DMkII to blow away the A900′s noise performance based on early samples that he’s seen. At higher ISOs, it gets more and more unusable:

By ISO 800 noise is unavoidably obvious and there is a bit of visible chroma noise as well. This can be tamed a bit in the raw converter, and isn’t too objectionable in prints up to about 13 X19″, but is quite noticeable on screen at higher magnifications.

Sensitivities above ISO 800 I regard as unacceptable for fine art prints and publication quality images, unless a special effect is intended.

On the other hand, the noise that’s there is at least better noise than what some other cameras would give you:

…unlike some cameras the noise on the A900 is stochastic in nature. In other words, less grid-like and more random. This makes it much less objectionable to the human eye, and so when noise characteristics are compared numerically this perceptual nuance is not factored in, yet it can mean a considerable difference in the way that we perceive noise. In other words, noise with the A900 at higher ISOs (at least up to ISO 1600 when chroma noise starts to kick in), is visually less objectionable than it is on some other cameras which claim lower noise. More film like, and less digital in other words.

The A900 also gives 12-bit RAW files, which may be an issue for some people when compared to the higher color bit depth available in Nikon’s and Canon’s DSLRs. The review also notes that the auto focus is “competent,” but not as good as what you would get with a high-end Canon or Nikon.

That’s a whole lot of negatives for a camera that most people seem to like. On the plus side, they love the viewfinder, saying it’s large, bright, and “a joy.”

They also throw around some superlatives about the amount of detail in the images:

On the resolution front first, it can be said that when used with a lens capable of showing what this sensor can do, the A900 is the highest resolving DSLR that I’ve ever used. I have not yet had an opportunity to work with the just announced Nikon D3x, but when I do I will conduct an informal four way shoot-out between the Canon 5D MKII, 1Ds MKIII and the Sony A900. Notwithstanding this upcoming comparison, anyone buying an A900 can be confident that there’s nothing else anywhere near the A900′s price range that can beat it in terms of resolving power. Simply outstanding when used with the best lenses.

But even the high resolution isn’t all rainbows and unicorns. He reports that Sony’s lens lineup isn’t really good enough to take full advantage of the great sensor on the A900. Many of the lenses are old Konica/Minolta designs from the 70′s and 80′s, which have slower auto focus and, in general, aren’t sharp enough for a 24.6 megapixel sensor. He really likes the Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 24-70mm f/2.8 and the Sony 70-300mm G f/5.6 (although the 24-70mm’s bokeh isn’t great), and feels that the Sony 50mm f/1.4 is “competent” and similar to the Canon and Nikon versions. But otherwise, Canon and Nikon have a huge advantage in the amount and quality of lenses available for their high resolution DSLRs.

But let’s get back to the good things about the camera. He raves about the camera’s dynamic range, saying that it’s better than anything in the same resolution range, and that the only cameras that might have better dynamic range are the Nikon D90, Fuji F3, and Fuji F5.

I have rarely seen such wide dynamic range from any camera, including some medium format backs. On my shoot in Arizona I was able to capture scenes with brilliantly illuminated clouds along with deep shadows, and hold detail in both places. When combined with the sensor’s high resolution, for landscape work its hard to think of another camera currently available that is a more suitable tool, and at under $3,000 this level of performance is unparalleled. Just a few years ago it took a medium format back costing $30,000 to generate comparable images. And while today’s MF backs still have an edge, the price differential is significant.

And let’s not forget the decent price of the A900, especially when compared with everyone’s favorite subject these days, the price of the Nikon D3x:

In the light of the just announced (Dec 1, 2008) price for the Nikon D3x (US $8,000) the inherent goodness of the Sony A900 comes into focus (no pun intended). For the cost of a D3x one can buy a Sony A900 plus the exceptional Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, the very fine Sony 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6, a Sony A700 body as a backup, a flash, a couple of 16 GB high speed memory cards, and still have enough left over to pay the sales taxes. The same goes for the Canon 5D MKII, though you’ll have to pick two or three of your favourite lenses from that company’s lens line-up and something like the 50D body as backup instead.

Interestingly, Michael’s conclusion is that Canon people aren’t really going to defect from Canon for the A900; he thinks the 5D Mark II is good enough (and at the right price) to keep them happy. But given the pricing of the Nikon D3x, he sees high-end amateur Nikon shooters going for the Sony rather than anything from Nikon. He sees 2009′s top “serious amateur” cameras being the 5DMkII and the A900.

We’ll see. I can see the rich pixel peepers reading glowing reviews of the D3x and deciding that they absolutely have to have it. Maybe these are people with tons of Nikon glass and a serious need for huge numbers of pixels. I don’t know these people, though, so I don’t know what they’re likely to do. It’s certainly an interesting camera, and despite my general distrust of anything Sony (I still can’t get over Blu-Ray’s requirement to spend thousands of dollars per title for copy protection, even if you don’t want it, not to mention their endless proprietary format streak) I can’t help but admit that. Luminous Landscape seems to have found far more to complain about than some other glowing reviews that I’ve read, but with some huge positive elements in there, and an overall favorable review.

Nikon has officially announced the D3x today, and the Internet is, well, less than thrilled. Seriously, I can’t remember the last time I saw a camera announcement get so badly blasted by photographers around the net so quickly.

First, the specs. The Nikon D3x is an upgrade to the Nikon D3, with the biggest difference being the resolution being upped from 12 megapixel full-frame on the D3 to 24 megapixel full-frame on the D3x. Then there are some odd areas where the D3x has poorer specs than the D3:

• Burst shooting speed drops from 11 fps to 7 fps
• The D3′s ISO range was 200-6400, plus HI1 and HI2. The D3x gives you 100-1600, plus HI1 and HI2, which surely won’t be as “hi” as the D3′s famous boosted ISO settings

And then the biggie, which is why everyone’s complaining: the price. The D3x will have a list price of $8,000 — $3,000 more than the D3. And that’s three times the list price of the 21 megapixel Canon 5D Mark II ($2700 retail price.) I’m not sure who the target audience is that Nikon thinks will spend that kind of money on more pixels — maybe medium format photographers looking for something different? Here are a few samples of other people around the net wondering about Nikon’s pricing strategy for the D3x.

Thom Hogan writes

We can’t talk about the D3x without talking about the D3 and pricing. D3 prices have been collapsing for some time. That’s despite the fact that Nikon has not lowered the price to dealers (at least here in the US; not 100% sure about the rest of the world). That’s a sign of very weak demand, as in at least one advertised price I could find, the dealer was selling below what they paid for the product. Now we get a camera that is really only different in the sensor (and FX sensors cost basically the same to manufacturer, no matter what the pixel count on them [yes, there's probably a modest yield difference, but not enough to justify much of a price change]), yet we have a substantive price increase. Anyone else see the problem with this picture? Nikon’s asking us to pay more for the equivalent. I say equivalent because you can look at it this way: you can buy the same camera with either high ISO and dynamic range improvements, or you can have it with more pixels. For some reason, more pixels costs US$3000. Really?

[...]

Nikon has a big problem with the D3x, I think. It’s last to the market (FX, high resolution), with everything riding solely on the sensor. And they’re asking a huge price for it. At US$4999 the risk of failure wouldn’t have been very large. At its US$7999 price, it really needs to perform beyond expectations for it to shore up the top side of Nikon’s lineup. On the plus side, the pixel-deprived Nikon shooters will initially appreciate the part of the camera that addresses that issue, but I wonder whether it’s enough to make the D3x a winning product.

Ken Rockwell:

Nikon wants eight grand for this $5,500 camera, based solely on image quality, however the D3X’ image quality ought to be about the same as (maybe worse than) the $2,700 Canon 5D Mark II. The D3X ergonomics are far superior to Canon, but the D3 has the same ergonomics as the D3X, but for half the price and with twice the frame rate and four times the ISO of the D3X.

Michael Reichmann at Luminous Landscape:

It seems to me that at a $3000 premium over the otherwise almost identical D3, and at some $5000 more than the Canon 5D MKII and Sony A900, the pricing of the Nikon (especially in our current crisis economy) is simply out to lunch. A $1,000 premium I could have understood. Maybe even, $1,500. But with only more megapixels on offer I simply find the D3x to be financially out of tune with the realities of today’s marketplace.

Good luck, Nikon! Nobody seems to happy with this one so far…

DPReview has posted their in-depth review of the new Canon 50D, a 15 megapixel update to the 40D. The 50D also adds a high resolution (640×480) 3 inch LCD screen. Also, Canon has promised that sensor technology improvements — redesigned photo diodes and microlenses — mean lower noise despite the small photosites due to the increased resolution. And, to back up their claims, they’ve bumped the maximum ISO all the way to 12,800, even if that’s in the “extended” ISO range. The 50D is also the first appearance of Canon’s new DIGIC 4 processor, and also adds contrast-detection auto focus to live view. You also get a new sensor cleaning system, automatic lens vignetting correction, HDMI output, better weather-sealing, and a spiffy new user interface.

So, how does it do? Well, for starters, that 12,800 ISO setting isn’t anything worth getting excited about, according to the review:

The 50D produces comparatively clean output that demonstrates a well balanced mixture of chroma and luminance noise reduction. However at ISO 1600 and above it can’t quite keep up with the D300 in terms of detail retention. The Canon’s more heavy-handed luminance noise reduction inevitably leads to some blurring of fine detail. Output up to ISO 3200 is usable, ISO 6400 should be reserved for emergencies and the inclusion of the ISO 12800 setting was quite frankly pointless.

At least it’s not as noisy as the Pentax K20D. Yikes.

And about Canon’s claim that their improved sensor technology (something about gapless microlenses…) means less noise even with the increased megapixel count? Well, it might be less noise than if they hadn’t improved the sensor, but it’s still significantly noisier than the Canon 40D, at least on a pixel-by-pixel basis:

Despite the fact that the 50D is the newer camera it shows visibly more chroma and luminance noise than the 40D. Considering the 50D’s much more tightly packed sensor (4.5 MP/cm² vs 3.1 MP/cm² on the 40D) this comes hardly as a surprise. It would have been unreasonable to expect Canon’s engineers to overcome the laws of physics.

Of course, the natural question — which I don’t think I’ve ever seen a camera review answer — is whether the newer model camera in a situation like this gives you more or less noise at the same resolution. Obviously packing more pixels into the same sized sensor means a noisier image, in general. But that’s comparing it pixel-by-pixel. Since you’re also getting more pixels, then how does the noise compare if you shrink the higher resolution image down to the resolution of the previous model? In other words, is it worth getting the older model to produce less noisy prints, or will the same-sized prints look the same (or even better) with the newer camera, even if it does have more noise when pixel peeping?

One interesting noise-related bit is that setting noise reduction to “off” for JPEGs still lets the 50D do a fair amount of noise reduction, at least at the ludicrous ISO settings of 6400 and 12,800. Looking at DPReview’s samples of unprocessed RAW shots at those settings is almost physically painful.

DPReview also shows that the shadow dynamic range is slightly reduced at higher ISOs on the 50D when compared to the 40D, again due to the increased noise on the newer sensor. The 50D also has less overall dynamic range than most of its closest competitors, although it’s at least fairly well-designed:

The EOS 50D produced slightly less highlight range than the D300 and A700. In terms of shadow range it is on par with most of the competition (but lags behind the K20D and the EOS 40D). Despite the comparatively small measured highlight range the 50D manages a fairly soft ‘roll off’ at the highlight end which results in less hard-clipped looking white highlights.

In other bad news, automatic white balance is still poor under incandescent and fluorescent light. Not a big surprise, as Canon has never seemed to get these right (especially incandescent) but not a huge deal, since I’m assuming most photographers will shoot RAW and fine-tune the white balance in the RAW conversion anyways.

Interestingly, DPReview is uncharacteristically harsh on the high megapixel count in the 50D. Some choice comments:

In terms of detail the 50D is not quite the step up from the 40D that we would have expected. After all the new model’s nominal resolution has increased by approximately 22% in both dimensions. There is only a very small amount of extra detail in the 50D output though (in fact even at 100%, if you scale the 40D’s output up to match the 50D the results are almost indistinguishable). While the new sensor makes the 50D the highest megapixel APS-C DSLR currently on the market it also makes it the one with the highest pixel density and it appears that Canon has reached the limit of what is sensible, in terms of megapixels, on an APS-C sensor (using current technology). At a pixel density of 4.5 MP/cm² (40D: 3.1 MP/cm², 1Ds MkIII: 2.4 MP/cm²) the lens becomes the limiting factor. Even the sharpest primes at optimal apertures cannot (at least on the edges of the frame) satisfy the 15.1 megapixel sensor’s hunger for resolution. The result is images that look comparatively soft at a pixel level and only show marginally more detail than images from a good ten or twelve megapixel DSLR. If all you end up with is a larger image (and file) one starts to wonder what the whole point of pushing the resolution up to these dizzying heights is.

Considering the disadvantages that come with higher pixel densities such as diffraction issues, increased sensitivity towards camera shake, reduced high ISO performance and the need to store, move and process larger amounts of data, one could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that at this point the megapixel race should probably stop.

Just to make it clear, the 50D’s image quality is (at identical viewing size) and by no means worse than the competition’s but it’s also not significantly better than the 40D’s (Dynamic range and high ISO performance are even slightly worse) and that simply makes one wonder if the EOS 50D would have been an (even) better camera if its sensor had a slightly more moderate resolution.

And, in fact, moving on to the resolution chart comparison, they find that while the 50D does resolve more detail than the 12 megapixel D300 and A700 (as it should), the improvement is much smaller than you would expect.

In the end, DPReview does give the Canon 50D their “highly recommended” tag, but it truthfully sounds like there are very few people for whom this would be the right camera to get:

The EOS 50D has to stand its ground in a highly competitive bracket of the DSLR market. It is currently almost $500 more expensive than the 40D, almost $500 more expensive than the Nikon D90 and for an extra $100 you can bag yourself a Nikon D300. Looking at the specification differences between the EOS 40D and our test candidate it appears you pay quite a premium for the 50D’s extra megapixels and as we’ve found out during this review you don’t get an awful lot of extra image quality for your money. The Canon EOS 50D still earns itself our highest reward but considering its price point and our slight concerns about its pixel-packed sensor, it only does so by a whisker.