[PB PM]

I thought there was a topic about Rebel T2i/550D, but I could not find it so I'm starting a new thread.

So there has been a lot of talk about Canon's new 18MP sensor, and 1080p video vs the 12MP sensor and 720p Nikon offers, so I thought I'd put that all to the test. How did I end up doing that? I got a T2i/550D yesterday, for testing purposes, and I'm looking forward to really putting this camera through its' paces. If anyone who is considering buying this camera has any questions or would like me to test any specific features, feel free to ask and I'll be glad to do it. For now I only have the 18-55mm IS kit lens to work with, so don't expect anything spectacular!

I've never used a Canon DSLR before (as most of you know I'm a Nikon guy, and no I wont be selling my D300 and Nikkor lenses)), so this is really different for me. I actually really like this little camera. The build quality is a little lower than comparable Nikon cameras (D5000/D90), but then again the Rebel is also lighter and smaller than those cameras. I used to think the Rebel cameras were uncomfortable to hold, but the T2i is just right, for its' size, much nicer to hold than the Olympus E4xx and E5xx cameras and it isn't that much bigger either. You might have read some of the reviews on the T2i/550D already, but if you like I've done a quick write up about it on my blog (see my signature), covering more thoughts about it. Just a few more comments, I like the image quality, even from the kit lens, and the video quality is really nice at 1080p, even at ISO3200! I was thinking about getting a video camera a few months ago, but they just cannot compete in low light or bright conditions (they clip highlights too), so having the T2i is a no brainer. I went for the T2i because it has manual video controls, which the Nikon D5000/D90/D300s lack, sadly. If they did I would have bought a Nikon camera, most likely.

Oh yeah, unboxing photos for the camera geeks to enjoy, and link to blog post.
T2i/D550D Preview

[Wrao]

This is the camera that I want to get. It seems like about as solid of a blend of high end but not thousands of dollars as you can possibly get, and it has perhaps the most flexible HD video options south of $1000. (Though I consider that a bonus rather than a selling point)

[PB PM]

It does seem to fall into that position, it has the image quality, but not the speed of the 7D, in a smaller light weight package. The camera does get hot after extended or heavy usage (the DIC IV processor working really hard on those 18MP images and 1080p video files no doubt). My initial tests seem to line up with those done by the reviewers so far, it has a slight edge in high ISO noise on the Nikon DX 12MP sensor, not enough to be worth switching, but it is there. I bought the camera mainly for the size/weight for general outing photography and video feature. My Nikon gear will continue to see use as my primary still image capturing device, unless I am really impressed by the difference in image quality and resolution. I know I cannot really judge that based on the kit lens, so I might have to grab an L lens in a few months. (Yikes). I really want to judge the Nikon and Canon cameras properly before I switch to full frame, so this is also part of that process,

[turtle]

I'm jealous. I want.

Seriously though, congrats! I'm thinking if I don't get the 5D MKII I'll get this one. I like the idea of 7D, but would be good with the T2i.

[Xaqtly]

Yeah I want to upgrade to this from my Rebel XT. When you get a chance, can you share your opinions regarding low light/high ISO performance? The XT is pretty grainy at 1600. Also, when in movie mode, how is the autofocus while moving around?

And for stills, how is the 9-pt focus system in general? The 4-pt autofocus on the XT is one of its weak points.

[PB PM]

The high ISO performance is good, considering how many mega pixels they have crammed into the sensor. I have compared them to images from the D300, and it is important to note that although there is an edge in favor of the T2i, the D300 is very close behind, maybe 1/3 of a stop in terms of noise performance. I noticed that the T2i (in multi zone metering) has a preference for protecting shadow detail, over highlights, while the D300 tends to be more conservative, favoring protecting highlights. I'm going to be doing some natural lighting testing this afternoon so I'll have more results later.

Here are some 100% crops. These are images I took in a controlled lighting situation, so if there were more shadows in the image the noise could get worse. Aperture was set at F8, to ensure sharpness, and shutter speed was set manually.

ISO1600


ISO3200


ISO6400

[PB PM]

As for the 9 point AF system. I haven't really had much of a chance to test it, and sadly I haven't used any of the other Canon XXx line of cameras enough to say whether it is better. AF speed is fast enough for general shooting purposes though. It struggles a little bit in extremely low light, but overall not bad. The central cross type sensor gives the best performance, with the others struggling to get proper focus in low light.

[turtle]

Canon Ultrasonic lenses are where you gain focus speed and it works well depending on the lens.

3200 is about as bad as 1600 is on my XT.

[PB PM]

Not bad considering that is double the sensitivity eh? I even did a test of the High setting (ISO12800), but there is way too much colour noise for it to be useful. For images or prints I would sell I might be willing to push ISO1600, but more likely stick with ISO800 or lower.

Yeah I figured the USM equipped lenses would give better performance than the EF-S ones. At some point I'll likely pick up a USM or L lens to really give this camera a run for its money, and before I decide what I am going to do long term. I'd love to pit the 400mm F5.6L against my Nikon 300mm F4 AF-S with my 1.4x TC.

[Xaqtly]

Thanks PB PM, much appreciated. It does seem to look better at 1600 than the XT does.

[PB PM]

Noise in shadows is harsher than the examples I posted, but this does show that a well exposed image can get good results. Keep in mind these crops are a very small area of the frame. At full size you don't notice much noise.

What impessed me the most was the amount of detail recorded at high ISO levels. That may be a result of the high pixel density.

I was shooting some vidos yesterday and I quickly realized that an external mic is required to avoid hearing noise from camera opertations. Meaning that if you use auto focus while recording it makes a lot of noise. Of course some of the newer USM lenses are likely quieter than that kit lens while focusing. I ended up manually focusing most of the time anyway.

One of the more overlooked features is the 640p crop mode. I made some vidoes with this mode yesterday while I was photographing eagles with my D300 and was able to get a decent amount of magnafication out of the 55mm end of the kit lens! I'd say it gave the equivilent of 250-300mm, which is impessive. Video quality in the crop mode is still very good, considering how magnified it is.

[turtle]

Now I'm really wanting one of these. The problem is I need a new MacBook Pro instead...

Why not both??? Do we really need electricity?

[PB PM]

Well, neither are much good without power. Camera technology is not standing still, get the MBP and by next year there could be a T3i with even better performance.

[iFerret]

Originally Posted by PB PM Well, neither are much good without power. Camera Computer technology is not standing still, get the MBP camera and by next year there could be a T3i MBP with even better performance.

Neither is standing still, so it's hard to say which is the better choice. From the sounds of it though, it sounds like you need the MBP more - so what PB PM said.

[PB PM]

Yeah, getting what you need is far more important that what you want. The XT is still a good camera.

[Dorian Gray]

I bought a Nikon D300S a week ago, so I'm set for the foreseeable future unless Nikon introduces something stunning (though with several models due for replacement with new sensors, that's a distinct possibility). The 7D has sucked the wind out of D300S sales, which means it sells for a very reasonable price, considering its high build quality, viewfinder, features, etc.

The T2i/550D is an aggressive model for Canon, with some great features. The sensor is superb and probably the best in the business at the moment. Evaluating noise performance is tricky though. It's not fair to compare an 18-megapixel sensor (550D) and a 12-megapixel sensor (D300/D300S) at the pixel level and expect the 18-megapixel sensor to compete. You have to resample the images to an identical size, and then compare. Otherwise you're comparing a smaller crop from the 18-megapixel camera to a larger crop from the 12-megapixel camera, leading to obvious unfairness.

Another thing to note is that today's cameras, including the D300S and 550D, are limited by photon noise ("shot noise") in mid-tones at low ISOs and short exposures. The photons falling on each pixel arrive in random bursts that follow a Poisson distribution, and this randomness is the predominant source of noise in such images. Today's sensors have high quantum efficiencies, low read noise, and low dark-current noise. It's only when we dip into the shadows of such photos, or take long-exposure shots (at least a few seconds), or shoot at high ISO sensitivities, that we run into the cameras' read-out noise and/or dark-current noise limitations. There are still meaningful differences in camera performance in these areas. The 18-megapixel Canon sensor has very low read noise at high ISO, which is why it has less deep-shadow noise at ISO 3200 than any other crop-sensor camera out there, including the D300/D300S.

The D300/D300S, on the other hand, still has lower deep-shadow noise than the Canon sensor at low ISOs, thanks to Sony's column-parallel analogue-to-digital conversion technique (Sony PDF for D300 sensor) and Nikon's 14-bit readout mode as implemented in the D300/D300S (which reads the sensor multiple times and adds the result (effectively averaging the multiple reads) before resetting the sensor's pixels; incidentally, this multiple-read method takes more time, which is why the frame rate drops to 2.5 fps in 14-bit mode on these Nikons).

The 7D also seems to suffer from low-ISO banding, like many Canon cameras (notably the 5D Mark II). Here's an ISO 100 example ZIP file with a 7D raw file, from DPReview's review of the 7D. Raise the shadows a bit in this image (try it yourself), as you would to extract the full dynamic range of the sensor, and the banding becomes serious (100% crop):



This pattern noise greatly reduces the usable dynamic range in practice. (The Nikon D300/D300S has none of this.) The banding doesn't come from the sensor itself, but rather the low-cost surrounding electronics that Canon tends to use in anything other than their 1D/1Ds series cameras. Many photographers don't care about this, which is why Canon can get away with it, but for me it's a real downer. I'd be curious to know whether the 550D also suffers from this.

Another thing to note is that Canon's 18-megapixel sensor can produce noticeably more detail than the 12-megapixel Sony sensor in ideal conditions (tripod or high shutter speed, good lens at optimum aperture, etc.), but by less than the uninitiated might expect. That's because (a) even the best camera lenses have low contrast-transfer at the Nyquist spatial frequency corresponding to the 4.3-micron pixels of the new Canons, and (b) the new sensor introduces unequal green-channel response in an attempt to reduce noise further. Dealing with the unequal green-channel response in raw processing (whether by the camera's JPEG engine or post-processing software) causes a reduction in high-frequency contrast. Even though you don't get much more detail from the extra pixels, you do benefit from fewer digital artefacts such as stair-stepping and demosaic artefacts, albeit at the cost of larger files.

One final thing I might mention is that noise is closely related to sensor area, but only very loosely related to pixel count. More pixels don't mean significantly more noise (at the picture level; of course smaller pixels are noisier in themselves) unless too many pixels have been squeezed onto the chip for the current process technology. Process advancements reduce the chip area consumed by features that aren't sensitive to light. If 70% of a 12-megapixel chip is sensitive to light (i.e. the chip has a 70% "fill factor"), but a process improvement shrinks the logic circuitry to allow 50% more pixels with the same 70% fill-factor, then noise need not increase.

[Matsu]

Hi fellow photnuts,

I've been driving friends and family crazy with the my D300, so I can say that I sometimes think that the noise obsession is overstated. I don't like to use a flash - I don't have one for the D300. I will crank the ISO to 1600 with no second thought, and even 2000-3200. Pics look fine at 15-20" monitor sizes, and they look fine in 8x10 and 11x14 prints - JPEG Fine - nothing more. In black and white prints it's just not an issue at all. With a little contrast adjustment, I can even add some grain and people love the results.

I can see from numerous online examples that there's still more to gain from shooting RAW, but I haven't got the software/time/willingness at the moment. What I should be doing next is getting a good main flash unit, if I stay with Nikon, maybe the SB-900 or a used SB-800.

After a lot of shooting, I think I've only really mastered the ambient light candid face portrait, but it's going to take a bit more control of lighting in order to produce the range of images in the various environments that might come up - particularly at a wedding - my pop-up parchment paper diffuser will only do so much...

So here's the dilemma. I don't have enough $$$ into lenses at this point to really tie me to one make or another. I need a 70-200 and a flash unit. I'm wondering if I should get a Canon - where it seems a bit easier to get a 35mm full frame (5Ds2) and a small crop frame back-up (rebel series) which both do well in low light and print up to at least 16x20 with a little care.

A Canon kit might look like:

T2i
5Ds2
24-70
70-200
85
Speedlights

A Nikon Kit might look like:
D300
D700
24-70
70-200
85
speedlights

I will take time to get all of these of course - I'm thinking of buying lenses and flashes and renting cameras as needed...

Anyway, so many choices/decisions, since a good flash is really the next thing to gain some proficiency with, should I get the Nikon unit or look to a third party like Quantum?

PS, sorry for the total thread derailment, I just don't like to start new threads that often, and the noise results got me asking myself that familiar, "which brand?" question all over again.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray The T2i/550D is an aggressive model for Canon, with some great features. The sensor is superb and probably the best in the business at the moment. Evaluating noise performance is tricky though. It's not fair to compare an 18-megapixel sensor (550D) and a 12-megapixel sensor (D300/D300S) at the pixel level and expect the 18-megapixel sensor to compete. You have to resample the images to an identical size, and then compare. Otherwise you're comparing a smaller crop from the 18-megapixel camera to a larger crop from the 12-megapixel camera, leading to obvious unfairness.

That is true, but then again when a 100% crop at 18MP shows less noise than a 100% crop of a 12MP image, that says something does it not? The amount, as I noted earlier really is not enough to switch.

More comments on the T2i: It has been one week, and what do I think now?

The sensor in the T2i, is nice, but there is not enough of an improvement over what I have in the D300, in terms of image quality. Not to mention that Nikon is set to be releasing it's D90 and D700 replacements this year, so who knows what will happen. I was not expecting the AF system of the T2i to compete with the D300, since they are a difference class of cameras, but I am finding that I have to manual focus to get decent sharpness a lot of the time, which is not much fun when you are trying to shoot distant subjects, like the landscape photos I was taking today. The center cross type sensor seems to be the only one that works well, which makes the others kind of useless. Lots of focus and recompose, which is a bad compromise for my usage. Part of that may be the lens, but I'm not so sure. I got excellent results when manually focusing, very sharp detailed images. The AF system of the T2i is really disappointing for a camera at the price point that it sells for, IMO. The D90 is cheaper (its almost 2 years old though) than the T2i, has the image quality of the D300, and the AF system is easier to use and more accurate.

The video mode is the one area where I see Canon having the advantage, it really is that good, but the video is really the only feature that makes me want to keep it. Once the initial purchase joy passed, so did my enthusiasm for how the camera operates. I guess part of it is that I am used to using a high performance camera. It could be how everything works off the back of the screen, which is really slow (for me anyway), but I'm not used to doing that either. One thing that got me was how slow it zooms images in playback mode, of course the files are extremely large so that could be the issue (RAW files can be as large as 25MB). I would have thought the DIC IV processor would be able to handle them though.

The evaluative metering system on the T2i seems to be good indoors, but for a few kinds of outdoor photography, I'm not impressed. As I noted in an earlier post, the T2i meter favors protecting shadows, but at the expense of highlights. Sometimes that is okay, but there are other times when that just is not acceptable. Of course, I am comparing the D300's metering system to the T2i, which may not seem fair, but the T2i has the same as metering system as the 7D, which is supposed to compete with the D300s (Yikes!!!). With spot and center weighted metering results are better, that's kind of a given, but I don't want to use those modes all the time. The matrix metering in Nikon's Semi Pro cameras is, IMO, better than Canon's evaluative metering in the T2i and thus likely the 7D as well, since they share the same system. Compared to the metering system in the D80/D90, the T2i isn't too far off though, it might be a bit better, hard to say. The thing is, there are many times when I don't have time to think about what metering mode to use, and in that kind of situation I cannot trust the T2i based on my testing. I suppose I could lock in negative exposure compensation, but that is just something else to forget when shooting in different conditions. That was one of the reasons I moved up for the D80, was the better metering of the D300. The highlight tone priority mode in the T2i, doesn't seem to have much effect either, it still blows highlights a lot.

I think the T2i is a nice camera, and in good hands will be able to capture some great photos, but it is just not for me. It's kind of sad really, because I do like the video mode, a lot, but again I just cannot justify keeping it for that alone. I think it is a good camera for first time DSLR users, and would be fine for family photos, portraits and vacation photography, but it doesn't fit the bill for me. If anyone does get this camera, I'd suggest skipping out on the kit lens if possible, it is okay for the price, but I think you'd have a better experience with a different lens. So with all that said, I think I'll be taking my T2i back to Best Buy before the 14 days for exchange are up, for a refund or exchange for a video camera. I'll give it a few more days, just in case I'm being too hasty in my decision.

Matsu: Noise is an issue that not every photographer runs into. Problem is I often have to shoot at ISO1600 and crop my images, which means that noise becomes apparent even in small prints. Noise is not the only issue at high ISO, you loose dynmaic range, contrast and detail, far more so on the D300 than the T2i, which surprised me. In ideal lighting both cameras do fine, but when you are shooting wildlife the way I do, ideal lighting conditions are not the norm.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Matsu …I sometimes think that the noise obsession is overstated.

Originally Posted by Matsu I'm wondering if I should get a Canon - where it seems a bit easier to get a 35mm full frame (5Ds2) and a small crop frame back-up (rebel series) which both do well in low light and print up to at least 16x20 with a little care. A Canon kit might look like: T2i 5Ds2 24-70 70-200 85 Speedlights A Nikon Kit might look like: D300 D700 24-70 70-200 85 speedlights

If noise is overrated, then there's little reason to get a T2i/550D. Its big feature is the low-noise sensor (and video). On the other hand, your D300 is a pro-calibre machine with a similar user-interface to the D700, i.e. they go well together. A T2i and 5D Mark II share little in common, which might (or might not) prove problematic when switching between them.

Originally Posted by PB PM That is true, but then again when a 100% crop at 18MP shows less noise than a 100% crop of a 12MP image, that says something does it not?

It certainly does.

Originally Posted by PB PM Noise is an issue that not every photographer runs into. Problem is I often have to shoot at ISO1600 and crop my images, which means that noise becomes apparent even in small prints. Noise is not the only issue at high ISO, you loose dynmaic range, contrast and detail, far more so on the D300 than the T2i, which surprised me.

Noise and dynamic range are two sides of the same coin. The dynamic range is limited by the noise floor, so lowering the noise floor increases dynamic range. According to DxO Labs (click the Dynamic Range tab, then the Print button), the 550D has almost a stop better dynamic range than the D300 at ISO 1600, i.e. it has less noise in the dark areas of the photo. Contrast and detail are also limited by noise (more noise means you need more noise reduction during raw processing, which destroys local contrast and detail). So ultimately the advantages you see in the 550D picture quality all come down to lower noise.

Nikon will get there eventually, with Sony's help. The 14-megapixel Sony CMOS sensor is about half-way between the D300 and 7D in terms of high-ISO noise performance, but Nikon have thus far not used that sensor. That suggests Nikon is waiting for something better, which would presumably be roughly equal to the 7D's sensor. Nikon wouldn't have waited unless they had reason to believe a better sensor than the Sony 14-megapixel CMOS was forthcoming.

I analysed sensor performance in some detail before committing to the D300S, and it's clear the D300/D300S sensor is not as efficient at high ISO, per surface area, as the D700, D3S (nowhere near as efficient as this one), 5D Mark II, 5D (above ISO 1600 only), 1D Mark IV (nowhere near as efficient as this one either), 7D (one stop difference), Sony A550 (half a stop difference), and pretty much all current sensors smaller than Four Thirds. The D300/D300S sensor is more efficient at high ISO per unit area than the current Four Thirds sensors, the full-frame Sony sensor (A850 and A900), and all current CCDs equal to or larger than APS-C. Therefore when Nikon introduce a new DX sensor it will almost certainly have significantly better high-ISO performance. My guess is about one stop better.

Of course that won't win back the sales Nikon has lost by being tardy with new sensors.

[Matsu]

What impresses me most about the Nikon is the ability to deliver good results with third part AF lenses. My sigma 18-50 f/2.8 HSM works accurately and fast.* Canon users don't seem to report the same success when dealing with third party AF.

I think what I'm after now is an available light machine that can take me inside a relatively dark building and outside with minimal fuss. So I'm starting to think about the larger 35mm frame... The flexibility in D700 files is just monumental, as is the detail in 5dsII files.


***Though the first copy had a focus misallignment - top of frame was out of focus at large aperatures against flat surfaces. It had to be exchanged. Buying from Henry's helped. I bought it, printed out some focus test charts and tested it right away. I brought it back within a couple of days - they gave me a straight exchange. 2nd copy was perfect.

[PB PM]

Most likely not. My guess has always been that Sony is holding the sensors back to boost their own sales. Either that or Nikon is waiting for a new sensor from Sony (maybe the one bound for the A700 replacement, if it ever comes)?

I agree with Dorian, if you want a camera to pair with the 5D MkII, it would be the 7D, but to throw a wrench in the spokes, the 7D has a superior AF system than the 5D MkII.

Right now my conclusion is, there is no point in upgrading to a crop sensor body, until they are at least two stops improvement in the high ISO range. That is what we have seen in the T2i over the XTi, mind you that is a three generation leap (XTi --> Xsi --> T1i -->T2i). Many felt that the 15MP sensors 50D/T1i were a step backwards in noise/dynamic range, so Canon has done a good job with the 18MP sensors in the T2I/7D, without a doubt.

Nikon had it's leap a a number of years ago (D80/D200 --> D90/D300), but there has not been a better DX sensor since the D300 came out, which is a little disappointing. If this years upgrades don't change, they will really start to loose out, and competition is getting thick, with the likes of Samsung and Panasonic starting to breath down their necks, stealing some of Nikon's market share.

[Xaqtly]

These are somewhat relevant. Taken with my Rebel XT at 1600 ISO because I also hate using flashes. Fairly low light in this room but I was using my 85mm 1.8 lens at 1.8 which helped. Also I'm still pretty turned on by the T2i because regardless of what the AF is lacking with the T2i, it's worse on the XT. For me it would still be a pretty big upgrade and I'm already invested in Canon lenses now.

Also, these kittens (and a few more) are up for adoption.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by Matsu What impresses me most about the Nikon is the ability to deliver good results with third part AF lenses. My sigma 18-50 f/2.8 HSM works accurately and fast.* Canon users don't seem to report the same success when dealing with third party AF. I think what I'm after now is an available light machine that can take me inside a relatively dark building and outside with minimal fuss. So I'm starting to think about the larger 35mm frame... The flexibility in D700 files is just monumental, as is the detail in 5dsII files. ***Though the first copy had a focus misallignment - top of frame was out of focus at large aperatures against flat surfaces. It had to be exchanged. Buying from Henry's helped. I bought it, printed out some focus test charts and tested it right away. I brought it back within a couple of days - they gave me a straight exchange. 2nd copy was perfect.

Third party lenses work just as well with Canon cameras and Nikon cameras from what I have heard. People often mistake AF problems for lens/body AF misstatement. Problem is, that is something you cannot deal with yourself in entry level modes. Even the focus adjustments on the Nikon and Canon cameras is not always enough, if they are too badly misaligned.

If shooting available light is important, full frame is the only way to go right now. The full frame sensors don't just have improvements in noise, but as Dorian pointed out, the dynamic range is better as well. I can only imagine what it must be like shooting at ISO1600 and having clean, well detailed images.

Xaqtly:
Those shots are very nice for ISO1600, and in that kind of light, you should get good results!

I think I may have judged the AF system on the T2i a little too harshly. I did some more testing, in lowish light this morning, and all the points work okay, you just have to remember with the non-cross type sensors to focus on horizontal objects. That has always been the case with non-cross type sensors, but I think the ones in the Rebel's may be a little worse than some of the others.

[PB PM]

Looked through my images, and discovered something. I would say the kit lens may very well be the reason I think my images are soft. The area of focus, does seem sharp for the most part, while softness seems to persist in other parts of the image. I was shooting at F8 or F10 for most of the landscape shots, so diffraction may also have come into play. That is the big downside of these high resolution cameras, you loose sharpness at higher F-stops much sooner. So my conclusion now is that the kit lens just does not have the resolving power to get good images under the conditions that I was using it. I suspect that the 17-40mm L would have been able to handle what I was doing a lot better, but getting a lens like that just isn't in the cards right now.

[turtle]

You are on the right track with suspecting the lens PB PM. It's a kit lens after all. Really, the nicer lenses (not even L that is) will get you a much nicer image all around. I haven't gotten any easily tagged so I can show you the difference. Maybe I'll try to set up something to show the difference with my XT, but then the XT is nothing like the T2i other than a cropped frame. MY kit lens isn't even the IS version.

[PB PM]

Yup, the sad part is the kit lens can be very sharp! I got some good indoor shots with it, manually focused via liveview. I think in the case of the T2i, it is the resolving power of the lens for landscape photography, which for me is the only reason to get a higher resolution camera.

I got this photo with the kit lens, but there just isn't enough sharpness in the image, even at F13. Anything beyond that is diffraction limited, even though the scene really needed an F-stop closer to F22 for what I wanted. This is an ISO200 RAW file, edited in Lightroom 3 beta. I would have done it in Aperture, but it doesn't support the T2i yet. I like the colour I was able to get out of the T2i in this situation, I was easily able to get it to look very natural.

[Xaqtly]

Apple released a Camera RAW update today that includes the T2i.

[PB PM]

Strange, I installed the update and Aperture is still saying the CR2 files from the T2i are not compatible.

[PB PM]

Okay, just had to reprocess the master files. Working fine now.

[PB PM]

I'm going to do another post in a few minutes showing my natural light ISO testing, with examples from the D300 and T2i. First an example of the kit lens being out resolved by the sensor.



As you can see, there is lots of detail, but it is all soft. This isn't a matter of focus, but rather the kit lens just cannot handle all the detail that is in the scene. Really makes me wish I could have afforded some L lenses for testing purposes.