50D Owners Thread - Anything 50D related

[a_jac]

Any recommendations on the cheapest place for 50D?

 

[tdodd]

Based on the prices listed here - http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod721.html - I would go for a deal from Jacobs at £817 delivered less 3.5% cash back by purchasing via Quidco - http://www.quidco.com/jacobs-cameras/ - making it £788 delivered.

I have bought from Jacobs before and had some good and some bad experience but overall, if the price is right I would use them.

There are other suppliers here with whom I've had no dealings....

If you are happy with a Hong Kong import and are happy with very mixed customer reviews you could try http://www.simplyelectronics.net/mainproduct.php?pid=4897 for £740 delivered.

There's also this UK dealer - http://www.camerabox.co.uk/product1.asp?ProductID=5763&gclid=CNysvZuxiJwCFdYB4wodHGVZAQ - at £788 delivered.

All in all I'd go with the first option for UK stock and full Canon UK support.

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

Any recommendations on the cheapest place for 50D?

try Kerso

 

[tdodd]

try Kerso

That would be a good alternative

 

[CT]

There's a 6 page technical article on the 50D in the latest issue of CPN magazine. While it doesn't tell us much we didn't know already, the following extract throws some insight on where Canon sees this camera in it's current line-up and where perhaps future models may be heading:-

"While it's tempting to see the EOS 50D as an upgrade to the still-current EOS 40D. it's compelling features and functionality - described in detail on the following six pages - bring it much closer to a smaller, lighter version of the EOS 1D Mark III."

I'm struggling to see how they justify this statement apart from a few features in common such as lens calibration.

 

[tdodd]

Well, as the owner of a 40D, 50D and 1D3 I would place the 50D much, much, much closer to the 40D than the 1D3. I think Canon is mistakenly thinking of the Nikon D300 and D3, for which such a claim seems valid. The xxD cameras are nowhere close to the 1 series. Nowhere. If the 50D was featured/specced to compete head to head with the D300 I might be inclined to accept their claim, but not as things stand today.

 

[Trev4]

I bought my 50D quite a few months ago, and have to say it’s a great camera. My main interest is natural history type things, for an absolute amateur I have had some results that I am pleased with, and I do enjoy using this camera. I upgraded from a 400D, still a nice camera but it doesn’t compare to the 50D.
On CT's recommendation and help I bought a 100-400L and am again very pleased with it, but haven’t used it as much as I want yet, I also bought a 100mm f2.8 macro and a nifty fifty. Walkabout lens is an 18-85 IS USM.

When I look at the Peripheral illumination correction in camera, the lenses I have are all recognised, but only the 17-85 and the 100-400 are listed as having Correction data available. The 50mm f1.8 and 100 macro have no data available.
While I haven’t found this to be a problem in any way yet, I wonder if this is the design or am I doing something wrong. When I use RAW I can’t make auto adjustments based on the lens data.
I am not up to you guys standards so this isn’t important to me so far, maybe in time it will be a feature that might be useful.

With regard to settings, I have HTP and ALO turned off (as advised by CT, thanks’ mate ).
Picture style is ‘standard’ but with Saturation set at +1 (user def 1)
Colour space - Adobe RGB
Long exposure NR - auto
High ISO speed NR - standard
I use spot metering, and AI Servo
Centre AF point, and AWB

Sounds like my life story doesn’t it lol

Yes, I save in RAW and JPEG, I seem to vary as to which one I use and haven’t yet made a preference. For PP I use DPP and Elements 7 respectively.
Having said all that, I am still finding the BG somewhat noisy when I do about a 50% or more crop. I have used NR in DPP, and/or the reduce noise filter in Elements to reduce the noise, but feel I might be setting something up wrong, or not using the best settings in camera, or that there is some basic thing I am overlooking.

Would you consider the above settings to be reasonable or are there changes you would recommend.

Thanks guys.
Trev

 

[CT]

Yo Trev,

Oooh - swap that colour space to sRGB mate!

I have long exposure NR 'OFF' , but I hate NR in camera anyway.

Spot metering.... well it can be a hindrance mate unless you're absolutely sure what you're spot metering on and why. If you tried spot metering on a magpie you'd see the problem.

 

[Chaz Photos]

Any recommendations on the cheapest place for 50D?

Got mine for £699 frome Kerso

 

[Trev4]

Yo Trev,

Oooh - swap that colour space to sRGB mate!

I have long exposure NR 'OFF' , but I hate NR in camera anyway.

Spot metering.... well it can be a hindrance mate unless you're absolutely sure what you're spot metering on and why. If you tried spot metering on a magpie you'd see the problem.

Thanks CT I appreciate that and will change. What metering would you suggest. My logic was that with small birds you could meter directly off the bird, obviously thats wrong and I'm not thinking in the right direction, its all a part of learning isnt it. I havent tried taking a Magie yet, but no doubt it will come.

Thanks
Trev

 

[CT]

Having said all that, I am still finding the BG somewhat noisy when I do about a 50% or more crop. I have used NR in DPP, and/or the reduce noise filter in Elements to reduce the noise, but feel I might be setting something up wrong, or not using the best settings in camera, or that there is some basic thing I am overlooking.

At what ISO Trev? I shoot at 800 ISO almost by default most of the time these days and in good light the 50D handles 50% crops pretty well without undue noise I find. Obviously as light levels drop or if you under-expose at all, then noise increases quite noticeably.

I don't apply any NR in DPP, in fact I never apply NR to the whole image -ever. I've yet to see NR software which doesn't impact on the image detail to some degree. Where noise is noticeable in my finally processed image, I apply NR just to the BG which is where it's usually most evident. Noise is present in the whole image of course, but the feather detail in your birds shots masks the noise unless it's really quite excessive.

 

[CT]

Thanks CT I appreciate that and will change. What metering would you suggest. My logic was that with small birds you could meter directly off the bird, obviously thats wrong and I'm not thinking in the right direction, its all a part of learning isnt it. I havent tried taking a Magie yet, but no doubt it will come.

Thanks
Trev

Spot metering is great Trev but it isn't a cure-all for all situations. I'd suggest with where you're at now you stick with evaluative metering which will provide you with a good result under most conditions. I shoot with evaluative metering most of the time unless conditions are particularly tricky such as backlit or overly contrasty in which case I'd use exposure compensation or switch to manual mode.

You'll get away with spot metering on drab mid colour birds like sparrows a lot of the time, but coming back to that Maggy - you'd end up spot metering either on a black or white tone which would give you a grossly over-exposed or under-exposed image.

Similarly, with small birds like Great Tits with that white cheek patch, it's all too easy to spot meter on that white patch when you're focusing on the eye in most cases - the result being under-exposure yet again. Even if you can recover from it in processing, you'll aggravate any noise present in the process.

Don't get disheartened mate.

 

[Trev4]

At what ISO Trev? I shoot at 800 ISO almost by default most of the time these days and in good light the 50D handles 50% crops pretty well without undue noise I find. Obviously as light levels drop or if you under-expose at all, then noise increases quite noticeably.

I don't apply any NR in DPP, in fact I never apply NR to the whole image -ever. I've yet to see NR software which doesn't impact on the image detail to some degree. Where noise is noticeable in my finally processed image, I apply NR just to the BG which is where it's usually most evident. Noise is present in the whole image of course, but the feather detail in your birds shots masks the noise unless it's really quite excessive.

I have recently started applying NR on the background only, as you say thats where its most evident. In good light I try to use ISO 100, but when I cant use that, I go to 200 or 400, usually with the lens either wide open or stoped down by maybe one stop.
I check the shot on the histogram as soon as I take it to check the exposure then apply compensation if required. I havent really tried 800, perhaps I should use 800 and change my other lens settings? I was thinking that if I was struggling with noise at 400, then 800 would be worse.
As an example, this weekend I took a couple of quick shots of my grandchildren when they werent expecting it at a nature center (not my normal wildlife shots but ones we all do from time to time). The overall shot was ok but again, when I cropped it, maybe 50% in this instance, the faces were noticeably noisy, applying NR spoilt the shot so I have accpeted it as is.
Thanks for you help CT.
Trev

 

[Trev4]

You'll get away with spot metering on drab mid colour birds like sparrows a lot of the time, but coming back to that Maggy - you'd end up spot metering either on a black or white tone which would give you a grossly over-exposed or under-exposed image.

Ah, that makes sense, its me thinking in the wrong direction (again).
Yes, it can be a bit daunting when you think your getting there only to get a series of dissapointing results, but I keep coming back for more

All being well I am taking the 100-400 out birding this week, the first chance I have had for a little time, so this advice will be put to good use.

Cheers
Trev

 

[CT]

We need to do another days birdin Trev - bit difficult at the moment though. I'm sure we could sort a lot of these problems hands on or sitting at a computer for some of your processing probs.

I will say though that most of my 100-400L shots are at 400mm and wide open - I wouldn't worry unduly about stopping down as long as your basic technique is sound and you're sure you're not getting camera shake. Keeping the lens wide open will give you the fastest shutter speed you can get in the prevailing circumstances. I shoot mostly wide open at F4 with the 500mm and 800 ISO mostly - sometimes 400 ISO which usually means very good light anyway-sufficent to keep the shutter speed up around 1/250 - preferably faster. Bear in mind too that's tripod mounted on a gimbal. 100 ISO with birds seems to be pushing it a bit mate - I can't see you getting a fast enough shutter speed very often in our climate with the 100-400. Unless you're taking that box of stuffed ones!

 

[CT]

An example 800 ISO shot Trev. No NR on any of these:-

Full frame... I missed focus on the eye before everyone tells me.

Typical Forum Type Crop And Resize. You can see this a much larger crop than 50%

100% Crop.

 

[tdodd]

CT, it looks like you've got some Voodoo working for you there, if that's with no NR at all. What software was that processed with? Have you performed any background blurring trickery or something else? I'd say your 800 ISO looks at least as good as 400 ISO from my 50D and I do nail my exposures properly, usually with ETTR. Your example is a very nice image, by the way

Here's one of only 8 birdy images I've kept that I shot with my 50D at 800 ISO - first the full image and then a 100% crop, shot raw and processed in Lightroom 2.4 with no edits. I've got a few feathers clipped on the backs of the birds so I know I've ETTRd. It's nowhere near as good. The noise is everywhere.

I've actually given up using my 50D at over 400 ISO for birding. If you can share your secret I'm sure you'll do the 50D appreciation society a power of good.

Here it is, processed in DPP with NR at DPP defaults of 2,3....

The noise is improved but still nothing special. As for the (lack of) sharpness I shot this with a microfocus adjustment of only +1 and I've since found +8 to be the correct setting. Even so, shot at 250mm, 1/1000, f/7.1 and 800 ISO I would expect better. I used a single focus point and it was positioned firmly on the bird's brow, just in front of the eye. I think the noise is definitely impacting IQ. Of course, the flat backlighting is not helping the impression of contrast/sharpness, but still, the noise!!!!

 

[Trev4]

We need to do another days birdin Trev - bit difficult at the moment though. I'm sure we could sort a lot of these problems hands on or sitting at a computer for some of your processing probs.

That would be good CT, either /or, thanks, I learned a lot from the last time we met up, and apart from that, it was a pleasant few hours too with nice company. The three you have shown here are the quality I would like to aim for, or even approaching them would be good. It’s good to know I am not alone in this, even though I have to bow to the experience and knowledge of both you and ttodd, one day eh.... maybe with luck and perseverance. On the odd time when I have used 800, I have deleted every result which is why I said earlier that I don’t normally use over 400. There is an obvious difference between my attempts at 800 and yours; it’s just working out what the difference is.

Also, what is ETTR ?. I have a feeling I should know, maybe I do but I can’t work out what the acronym stands for.

The settings you have suggested are already stored in my camera and will be tried, hopefully this week, I'll put some examples up anyway.
I'll be following this thread with interest and thanks for the advice.
Cheers
Trev

 

[buckas]

Based on the prices listed here - http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod721.html - I would go for a deal from Jacobs at £817 delivered less 3.5% cash back by purchasing via Quidco - http://www.quidco.com/jacobs-cameras/ - making it £788 delivered.

I have bought from Jacobs before and had some good and some bad experience but overall, if the price is right I would use them.

All in all I'd go with the first option for UK stock and full Canon UK support.

use www.topcashback.com tim, no annual fee slightly less cashback though for jacobs % wise, others are the same

£816.90 inc P+P - jacobs 2.5% > £796.47
£825.00 inc P+P - jessops 4% > £792
£813.99 inc P+P - WE 3% > £789.57

RGB tech inc P+P + 2yr guarantee, no cashback deal £809

also think kerso is doing them for £699 last price list i had

http://www.camerapricebuster.com/Canon_EOS_50D_Body_pc.html

drew

 

[CT]

Also, what is ETTL ?. I have a feeling I should know, maybe I do but I can’t work out what it stands for. I am guessing it’s something ‘through the lens’, but I could be a mile out.

E-TTL means Evaluative Through The Lens, which is Canons name for it's TTL flash system.

I think you're actually querying Tim's reference to ETTR though? That means 'expose to the right' - the theory that exposing slightly towards the highlights rather than the shadows gives better exposure control and arguably beter noise performance.

 

[CT]

CT, it looks like you've got some Voodoo working for you there, if that's with no NR at all. What software was that processed with? Have you performed any background blurring trickery or something else? I'd say your 800 ISO looks at least as good as 400 ISO from my 50D and I do nail my exposures properly, usually with ETTR. Your example is a very nice image, by the way

Here's one of only 8 birdy images I've kept that I shot with my 50D at 800 ISO - first the full image and then a 100% crop, shot raw and processed in Lightroom 2.4 with no edits. I've got a few feathers clipped on the backs of the birds so I know I've ETTRd. It's nowhere near as good. The noise is everywhere.

I've actually given up using my 50D at over 400 ISO for birding. If you can share your secret I'm sure you'll do the 50D appreciation society a power of good.

Here it is, processed in DPP with NR at DPP defaults of 2,3....

The noise is improved but still nothing special. As for the (lack of) sharpness I shot this with a microfocus adjustment of only +1 and I've since found +8 to be the correct setting. Even so, shot at 250mm, 1/1000, f/7.1 and 800 ISO I would expect better. I used a single focus point and it was positioned firmly on the bird's brow, just in front of the eye. I think the noise is definitely impacting IQ. Of course, the flat backlighting is not helping the impression of contrast/sharpness, but still, the noise!!!!

Voodoo magic - I wish - I'll have some of that if there's any going.

No - I wouildn't mislead you mate there's no NR run on any of those images. You have got me wondering a bit now though tbh. I haven't kept the RAW file for this shot to check ISO for sure - I used this shot because I still had the full size TIFF to hand. The only thing unusual about the shot was that I was using the 300mm 2.8 and light was pretty dire as you can probably see, so it's conceivable I could have used the one stop aperture advantage of the 300mm 2.8 (over the 500mm) to shoot at 400 ISO, although I'm pretty sure I didn't.

The other thing is the image is quite light overall, especially the oof bg, so it's probably not the fairest example shot I coiuld have chosen as backgrounds are often much darker than that and more susceptible to noise showing. I'm not suggesting I never run NR on image backgrounds - in fact I quite often do but not always.

I use Canon DPP RAW software and output the file as a TIFF to Paint Shop Pro - a really old version - Version 7. I started using DPP reluctantly after all support for Premium Raw Shooter ended, but I've been really surprised by it. It doesn't have the bells and whistles of LR, but it produces great images staright out of the tin. Whether it's better for noise I dunno -but give it go perhaps, if you haven't already.

I've got to go out for a while, but I'll find a more representative shot later, where I still have the RAW file and post some other examples.

 

[tdodd]

use www.topcashback.com tim, no annual fee

Drew, thanks for the heads up on topcashback. I'm especially interested in cash back for Warehouse Express. I spent ~£2,000 with them earlier this year. That could have been a nice £60 back in my pocket.

As for Jacobs, that extra 1% is worth another £8, which would pay the £5 annual fee and then some. Fees are only taken from cash back earnings, never up front. I find generally that because of their small annual fee the %ages are usually more favourable and that small fee soon gets overtaken by larger savings over the year.

I've been with Quidco for 4 years and, after paying the annual fees I am quids in to the tune of £778 so far - pretty much £200 per year. I will definitely check out Topcashback though.

As for the 50D, what's not to like about Kerso's price? Canon UK should even honour the warranty, I do believe.

 

[buckas]

yeh, only caught onto the "cashback" schemes this year, £158 and counting so far, use it for everything - love it

drew

 

[tdodd]

I started using DPP reluctantly after all support for Premium Raw Shooter ended, but I've been really surprised by it. It doesn't have the bells and whistles of LR, but it produces great images staright out of the tin. Whether it's better for noise I dunno -but give it go perhaps, if you haven't already.

DPP is definitely better than ACR (Lightroom) for handling 50D noise and probably noise from any of Canon's cameras. You do need to check whether NR is enabled in the software though. By default DPP will apply NR even if you have it turned off within the camera. You can change the default behaviour, but unless you do then DPP will be applying NR for you and it increases the strength as the ISO goes up.

See this part of the settings dialogue....

If set as I have it then DPP will apply NR, even if it is disabled within the camera. If you really want no NR you must set the default to 0,0. I have no idea why they've set things up like this.

i.e. Here is my unedited raw. You can see I have all in camera NR disabled. Yet DPP has decided to add some NR for me despite the fact that I told it to use camera defaults - DISABLED! It ignored that completely and just did its own thing. I did not move the sliders. They should be at 0,0 but DPP has set them to 2,3 against my wishes.

 

[CT]

Tim, this one is definitely shot at 800 ISO - I still have the RAW file. It was shot with the 50D at 700mm - that's the 500mm f4L with 1.4X TC. Exposure was 1/25th @ f5.6 with tripod and gimbal head. It was a bright day but I was shooting in a wood under a dense overhead canopy, so light was quite subdued.It's probably a smidge under-exposed but for the purpose of this exercise I've left it 'as is'.

Here's the full frame shot reduced to 800 pixels - this has had USM sharpening just to overcome the loss in definition due to resizing. Obviously that has an adverse effect on any noise present.

A 100% crop from the original file. Not as absolutely sharp as it could be, but I'd have few qualms about an image this sharp being OK after editing etc.

And finally the 800 pixel typical forum crop which is pretty susbstantial. Again this has had a couple of shots of USM to recover from the loss in definition due to downsizing.

No noise reduction run on these in editing at all and I'm not finding the noise in the final version a problem - I wouldn't bother with NR on the bg for this shot and I wouldn't hesitate to to use NR if it bugged me, which it does if becomes too noticeable.

I often end up doing much bigger crops than these, but the likelihood of having to use NR on the background increases proportionately with the size of the crop. I find you can get away with murder as long as the original image is sharp enough. It can be really annoying binning an otherwise cracking image which is tending to be a bit soft at 1:1, but by the tme you've finished processing the image and applied sufficient sharpening to try and overcome the softness, you end up defeated by mega noise problems which come along with the excessive sharpening.

 

[tdodd]

That looks very good indeed. I shall have to experiment more at 800 ISO. Can you comment on whether DPP is in fact applying NR, perhaps without your knowledge?

 

[CT]

That looks very good indeed. I shall have to experiment more at 800 ISO. Can you comment on whether DPP is in fact applying NR, perhaps without your knowledge?

Actually - I've just been double checking on this Tim following your post above.

I use the Standard picture setting 'in camera' which tags a default sharpening level of 3 in the RAW editor which I just leave 'as is'.My reasoning which may or may not be flawed, is that it's a low level of sharpening which doesn't seem to be having any undue effect on noise in the RAW image, and the final image will need further sharpening anyway.

Checking the RAW NR setting on the 'Tools' tab in DPP I'm a bit surprised to find settings of ...

Luminance NR. 3
Chrominance NR 7.

I've never set or altered these, so I assume it's some sort of default setting. :shrug:

 

[srhmoto]

Don't forget that Canon are doing a £75 "trade in" offer on 50Ds at the moment, and any old SLR or DSLR qualifies!

Simon.

 

[a_jac]

Thank you to everyone who has provided me with feedback on my previous request, much appreciated.

 

[tdodd]

Checking the RAW NR setting on the 'Tools' tab in DPP I'm a bit surprised to find settings of ...

Luminance NR. 3
Chrominance NR 7.

I've never set or altered these, so I assume it's some sort of default setting. :shrug:

I don't know how your NR got to those levels but the native "default" of DPP for a 50D (it differs by body) is 2,3 at 800 ISO, 3,3 at 1600 ISO and 4,8 at 3200 ISO, so your settings seem quite a way up there.

 

[CT]

I don't know how your NR got to those levels but the native "default" of DPP for a 50D (it differs by body) is 2,3 at 800 ISO, 3,3 at 1600 ISO and 4,8 at 3200 ISO, so your settings seem quite a way up there.

I've no idea mate tbh. I know I've never consciously altered them. I recently downloaded version 3.6.0.0. of DPP which I think is the latest - if that has any bearing.

 

[Trev4]

E-TTL means Evaluative Through The Lens, which is Canons name for it's TTL flash system.

I think you're actually querying Tim's reference to ETTR though? That means 'expose to the right' - the theory that exposing slightly towards the highlights rather than the shadows gives better exposure control and arguably beter noise performance.

Yes, it was Tim’s reference I misunderstood, thanks for clearing that up. That’s something else I wasn’t aware of, exposing slightly towards the highlights, a useful tip.

To add to your discussion with Tim, I just checked a RAW picture here that was taken at 400 ISO, it was taken with the exposure NR off but the high ISO set to standard (in camera).
When I loaded it up in DPP, the luminance NR was set at 2 and the chrominance NR at 5, I haven’t altered any setting or preferences in DPP. There is an option there to ‘apply’ NR, do you have to apply it manually or is it applied automatically.
To be honest, I tried applying it manually and found it hard to see any difference, but maybe my eyes aren’t tuned in to the finer points yet, but wasn’t sure if it had already been applied hence me not being able to see the difference.
I wondered if the High ISO being set to standard accounted for the NR figures in DPP, or as you suggested, they are there by some default in DPP.
Trev

 

[Ceejay]

Not quite sure I understand all this when I open a pic in DPP and look under tools both Luminance and Chrominance are both on zero on my Raw files.
Any comment as to why.
C

 

[tdodd]

Not quite sure I understand all this when I open a pic in DPP and look under tools both Luminance and Chrominance are both on zero on my Raw files.
Any comment as to why.
C

My guess is that either you've set DPP up that way or you are running an older version of DPP that doesn't have this advanced "trickery". I think it was around the change from version 3.5.x to 3.6.x that things got more interesting. I'm running 3.6.1.0.

 

[tdodd]

When I loaded it up in DPP, the luminance NR was set at 2 and the chrominance NR at 5, I haven’t altered any setting or preferences in DPP. There is an option there to ‘apply’ NR, do you have to apply it manually or is it applied automatically.
To be honest, I tried applying it manually and found it hard to see any difference, but maybe my eyes aren’t tuned in to the finer points yet, but wasn’t sure if it had already been applied hence me not being able to see the difference.
I wondered if the High ISO being set to standard accounted for the NR figures in DPP, or as you suggested, they are there by some default in DPP.
Trev

I think that if you are viewing at 100% then any changes you make to NR will be applied automatically, but it takes a few seconds. If you are viewing at 50% or "Fit" then you need to force the update by clicking "Apply". You need to make sure that your preferences are set up for high quality viewing and saving, or something like that, rather than quick view/save or whatever it is. If you aren't set up for "quality" then the NR settings will not get implemented, or that is my understanding. You could check the Help for more info rather than my guesswork.

 

[Ceejay]

My guess is that either you've set DPP up that way or you are running an older version of DPP that doesn't have this advanced "trickery". I think it was around the change from version 3.5.x to 3.6.x that things got more interesting. I'm running 3.6.1.0.

Thanks for that Tim. Silly question where do I get the newer version, and does it overwrite the one I have now or do I have to remove it manually.
C

 

[tdodd]

Yes, it was Tim’s reference I misunderstood, thanks for clearing that up. That’s something else I wasn’t aware of, exposing slightly towards the highlights, a useful tip.

Check this out for the reasoning behind ETTR - http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml.

It is an excellent technique for maximising data capture and dynamic range and minimising noise. It is especially suited to raw shooting, where you have the luxury of making some types of adjustment with no loss of IQ. For JPEG I guess you can still use ETTR but I would probably aim for a "correct" exposure, if shooting JPEG, rather than an ETTR exposure. Since I only shoot to raw I really don't know or care which is the better approach. However, whether you shoot JPEG or raw, underexposing is never regarded as a good thing, since correcting underexposure increases noise and can introduce "banding" effects as there is insufficient data to represent the whole tonal range.

 

[tdodd]

Thanks for that Tim. Silly question where do I get the newer version, and does it overwrite the one I have now or do I have to remove it manually.
C

You can download it for free from Canon's website. It will install over the top of any previous version. You don't need to uninstall first. Hopefully this link will get you in the right neighbourhood to download it - http://software.canon-europe.com/products/0010677.asp

 

[CT]

To add to your discussion with Tim, I just checked a RAW picture here that was taken at 400 ISO, it was taken with the exposure NR off but the high ISO set to standard (in camera).
When I loaded it up in DPP, the luminance NR was set at 2 and the chrominance NR at 5, I haven’t altered any setting or preferences in DPP. There is an option there to ‘apply’ NR, do you have to apply it manually or is it applied automatically.
To be honest, I tried applying it manually and found it hard to see any difference, but maybe my eyes aren’t tuned in to the finer points yet, but wasn’t sure if it had already been applied hence me not being able to see the difference.
I wondered if the High ISO being set to standard accounted for the NR figures in DPP, or as you suggested, they are there by some default in DPP.
Trev

I don't really know the answer to this Trev. As I said earlier I don't consciously apply NR so those settings were a bit of a surprise. In fact I hate NR applied to the whole image and would rather see the noise than the loss of definition. Don't forget that when you load a saved RAW file all the settings saved with the file will be reset in DPP, even if it's file you saved months ago when you were messing about perhaps?

Generally speaking though, almost regardless of how noisy an image is at 100%, the noise usually disappears when yoiu downsize the image appreciably, and it's certainly gone if you downsize to 800 pixels on the longest side. The problem is the image will need sharpening to compensate for the loss in resolution due to downsizing .Obviously as you sharpen the image you also sharpen any noise present, so yoiu want the minimum of sharpening applied. You can only really achieve this if you got the sharpest image possible in the first instance.

I suspect there's more things affecting the final result than we're really considering, how you downsize the image, what degree of compression and the method of sharpening will all affect the final result including noise I'm sure.

Also there's no disputing that I'm fortunate in shooting with some of Canon's best glass, and it's no secret that 15mp on a crop asensor was always going to make a demand on your lens quality.

I honestly wouildn't worry too much about this stuff until you've identified a problem. Concentrate on your technique and getting the best shots you can in the first instance. Eliminate all possibility of blur and camera shake being a problem -use that new tripod, and beg steal or otherwise acquire a gimbal head. Fill the frame where you can - it will always give you the best result in the end.

 

[tdodd]

Don't forget that when you load a saved RAW file all the settings saved with the file will be reset in DPP, even if it's file you saved months ago when you were messing about perhaps?

If I make adjustments to a raw file in DPP and then save the file my adjustments stay put for ever more, or until I make further changes. You do also have the option to revert the file to "as shot" or back again to "as last saved".

Maybe my workflow is different from yours but when I exit DPP, having made changes, it prompts me to save the changed files. If I give the OK then the changes are retained. I have never witnessed DPP "resetting" my files unless I make that choice myself.