giulianus wrote:
> Your test is in contrast of the majority of others reviews
>
> Cause i've seen that the review was made not from Phil I ask him to
> do a more
> deep review of the camera using DPP and not the s..t of ACR for the
> tests.


DPreview has done retesting 50D...

It says in the introduction:
"For the first few hours, this review was published using RAW files converted with a "release candidate" version of Adobe Camera Raw 4.6. Adobe then informed us that changes had been made between this release candidate and the final version. We have re-processed all affected files and re-assessed all conclusions based on those original conversions."

And in the conclusion it says:
"We're by no means saying the 50Ds image quality is bad but it's simply not significantly better than the ten megapixel 40D. In some areas such as dynamic range and high ISO performance it's actually worse and that simply makes you wonder if the EOS 50D could have been an (even) better camera if its sensor had a slightly more moderate resolution. "

Not only to 40D, it also compared to Nikon D300, it says:
"Having said that, in terms of per-pixel sharpness the 50D cannot quite keep up with the better 10 or 12 megapixel APS-C DSLRs in the market."


I have never seen DPreview as clear as this on any camera before.....