Comments on: Canon 50D Review – CameraLabs.com

By: Kermit Derren

Kermit Derren — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:36:43 +0000

Great article. There’s a lot of good information here, though I did want to let you know something – I am running Fedora with the current beta of Firefox, and the design of your blog is kind of funky for me. I can understand the articles, but the navigation doesn’t function so great.

By: jetc

jetc — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:09:56 +0000

Hi. Got my 50d two weeks ago…some error 99 problems and weird semi black shots sometimes. A quick google search would show many having the same problem. Hopefully it just need a software upgrade but I am sending mine back to get replaced just in case.

By: KJ

KJ — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:03:50 +0000

I would like to see a 50d review use a 24-70 2.8L or a 24-105 4L Give me something sharper than a 17-85 IS or an 18-200… of course the sensor out resolves a 18-200…. DUH! In other news, water is wet, fire is hot, and Sarah Palin is a Woman…. These exciting ‘news’ stories are getting old. Do some real journalism.

I can’t remember where it was posted but one of the reviewers of the 50D remarked that they were surprised they were selling the 50D with such a kit lens. It’s not very ‘pro-sumer’ to use a superzoom. I agree whole heartedly and I think these kit choices are causing half of the ’soft/worthless resolution’ comments appearing everywhere. Even the 5d, with massive pixels by comparison had a 24-105L kit lens. They should have gone for better kit lenses and they could have avoided the whole ‘outresolved’ debate. But hey, doctors with canons are a great target market.

By: citytrader

citytrader — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 08:50:36 +0000

I’m agree, the test with a lens like the 18-200 where it’s performance is really bad is not to take into cosideration…
For example why not to use a Sigma 50mm that has mount in Nikon and Canon, so the lens are the same for both camera, and in this way you could test the sensor of both camera…

Is not a serious review.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 04:41:54 +0000

I have to agree, the review isnt worth much when a good evaluation would require a better quality lens, and the 18-200 doesn’t cut it if you want to see the limits of the camera! Better to put the stresses on the camera not the lens so why not do it again with a 24-105L use the same lens on the 40D and 50D for a model comparision. I know, wishful thinking, doubt it will happen

By: Ed

Ed — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:17:24 +0000

I read quickly thru the review, it was difficult to read everything, since I’ve seen it all before many times.

One thing that is missing in this review and all the others is a decent evaluation of the auto=focus capabilities, particularly on moving objects.

I don’t know the best way to do this, maybe taking it to a amusement park and photographing high speed rides with the 40D and D300 for comparison?

This brings up the issue of comparable lenses, the 40D and 50D could at least be compared with the same lenses, but any difference in the D300 leaves the lens issue in doubt.

The same goes for the comparisons in the review, the lenses used were no where near similar, so any comparison between the nikon and Canon was more of a lens test than a camera test. That particularly goes for using the 18-200mm lens on the 50D for comparison, since all results were lens limited and just a lens test.