http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/

Wow, thanks Mike. Guess I'm going to keep the 40D. By the way, what the heck does Highly Recommended (Just) mean?
Steve

I think it means that it's not worth blowing the extra cash to upgrade from the 40D!

In the end it seems to suggest there is image quality improvement and more pixels which may tip the scale. Limits at the extremes but I rarely shoot at the extremes. Granted I only read the conclusion and summary. All in all they like it and say it has improvements over the 40D but...you need to evaluate that in comparison to the price difference between the two cameras to determine the worth of it.

I agree that it does say less dynamic range but that appears to be at the extremes where I rarely thread with my images.

Cheers

Todd

Basically, I think that what it means is that the manufacturers seem to be fast approaching the point where there are serious trade-offs to be made for increasing the pixel count further. I think their reasoning for giving it a (just) highly recommended is pretty self-explanatory. You might see some image quality improvement, but certainly not 50% more actual resolution as one might think given the 50% increase in pixels. And since there is a several hundred dollar price difference between the 40D and 50D one has to weigh the cost. To me, it would appear that you may get a bit more detail with high quality lenses, but you may sacrifice some dynamic range and noise should you start to push some of the limits. Granted the camera does have a MUCH nicer LCD display, better LiveView and a few other firmware improvements, but I doubt I will be trading in one of my 40D bodies for one of these unless there is more clear evidence to push me in that direction. If I only had one 40D body and was looking for a second camera to put in my housing, I'd probably spring for the 50D and use the 40D for the backup.

Sadly, it would appear that the manufacturers continue to move in the direction of adding more features instead of working to seriously improve image quality. My prediction is that the 60D gets video rather than an increase dynamic range. Guess it depends on what most buyers are willing to pay for.

Mike

I wonder if anybody has first hand experience with these new "90 megapixel" LCDs underwater? My Sony T series digital camera's LCD is kind of invisible, even at snorkling depth!

I've spoken to two different people in this part of the world that have, both of their answers was 'it was a dream' (refering to the LCD). Appart from that, neither said there was much of a difference, but it's hard to judge after just one dive.

I managed to get my 50D down for an all too quick dive on Sunday (dive computer died shortly after I got in the water). Compared to the 40D the big plusses for me were the new LCD display is much better for image review and the auto focus seemed a tad snappier (particularly in dim light) than the 40D. Based on my experience in processing the shots I did get, the detail resolution of the 50D is better than the 40D. I certainly didn't have to use the Detail slider in Lightroom to the same extent as shots taken with the 40D when sharpening.

With regard to the reduced dynamic range of the 50D compared to the 40D. Looking at the figures in the DPReview article the big advantage the 40D has over the 50D is in the shadows. The figures quoted for DR in highlights has the 50D slightly better than the 40D which should mean better sunballs with the 50D than the 40D.

For the record, the resolution in pixels is "only" 640 x 480.

There are 3 "dots" for every pixel ... 640 x 480 x 3 = 921,600 dots

That said, at 3" across, 640 x 480 looks REAL nice.

It is interesting in that the head to head DR comparisons there are for camera-created jpg files. If you go back to the 40D review there and look at the ACR "best", it appears that they could get about 11EV from the 40D and a bit more than that from the 50D (about 11.6EV). The 50D did have about 1.8EV "headroom" on the highlights compared to about 1EV for the 40D, but it is obvious that one's RAW converter and one's RAW conversion abilities play heavily into any comparison. Just goes to show that it isn't necessarily always a question of whether a spec says one thing or another.

Mike