Canon 40d/50d question

[cfusionpm]

However, there are some important areas where the 40D outperforms the 50D. Namely high ISO performance and IQ.

I've seen this argued numerous times, most citing DPReview as a source. But thats odd considering that their own test images don't suggest that at all:



According to their testing, the 50D looks cleaner at pretty much every ISO except for 100 (at which it looks about the same). And as far as IQ, since it's got a higher pixel density (~50% more resolution), it demands better glass to retain quality (much like the 18mp 7D and 21mp 5DII).

I think the only ones who truely argue that the 40D was somehow "better" was in the sense that it was about the same performance for a lot cheaper. The 50D is certainly an upgrade, but it was designed more for those upgrading from a 20D or 30D. The 40D was already pretty good and the 50D is definately better, but not by a whole lot.

As far as ISO goes, here's a shot I've personally taken with my 50D at ISO 3200:

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/1682/img1273c.jpg

 

[subscuck]

I've seen this argued numerous times, most citing DPReview as a source. But thats odd considering that their own test images don't suggest that at all:

Actually, they do. There's more to high ISO performance than the amount of noise. The 50D applies far more NR at higher ISO than the 40D, resulting in a considerable loss in detail, which is clearly shown in the images you posted, as well as the images further into the review.

I won't argue that the 50D wasn't the huge improvement over the 40D that people were expecting, and I won't argue good glass brings out the most in it. It's a great camera and your pic proves that, but I stand by my original statement. I'd rather have a little more noise, and a sharper, more detailed picture than slightly less noise and a softer pic lacking some detail.