I think the gripe is not too few pixels, but too many. I for one would prefer a 10 MP cam with better S/N ratio as opposed to better smearing techniques to hide the noise.
That might sound nice in theory, but if you add more pixels, it accomplishes the same thing. For example, the D3 is touted for how good it is in low light with the very high ISO settings. However, take a shot from the 1DsIII, and print it at the same size, and the 1DsIII will look as good if not better in some cases. However, print at low ISO, and the shots will REALLY shine on the 1DsIII. The high ISO stuff is nice, but don't forget that the low ISO performance is more important for most situations. The 50D at 10MP and ISO 100 will produce better results than the 40D at ISO 100. Let's say that the 50D has a little more noise than the 40D at the high ISO settings (which should not be the case --- they'll at least be equal, and the 50D will likely be better). By the time you downsample the 15MP to 10MP, the 50D shot will look even better.
Ben Horne wrote:
That might sound nice in theory, but if you add more pixels, it accomplishes the same thing. For example, the D3 is touted for how good it is in low light with the very high ISO settings. However, take a shot from the 1DsIII, and print it at the same size, and the 1DsIII will look as good if not better in some cases. However, print at low ISO, and the shots will REALLY shine on the 1DsIII. The high ISO stuff is nice, but don't forget that the low ISO performance is more important for most situations. The 50D at 10MP and ISO 100 will produce better results than the 40D at ISO 100. Let's say that the 50D has a little more noise than the 40D at the high ISO settings (which should not be the case --- they'll at least be equal, and the 50D will likely be better). By the time you downsample the 15MP to 10MP, the 50D shot will look even better.
Wow, if this is true and it has good AF (is it being touted as an upgrade over the 40D?), this might be the camera for me to get next for the upcoming Sports season. Also been considering a used 1DMIIn, but this would be cheaper..
rockitman wrote:
5 extra mega pixels over the 40D is a big deal if you crop photo's.
I too would believe so but I am thinking that maybe with so many megapixels we could be well over Canon's best lenses resolution. The experts will tell us, but I start to believe that for instance for shooting birds you can get better results say with a 30D + 500mm + 1.4x than with 50D + 500mm cropped. What do you think?
ocean7 wrote:
I too would believe so but I am thinking that maybe with so many megapixels we could be well over Canon's best lenses resolution. The experts will tell us, but I start to believe that for instance for shooting birds you can get better results say with a 30D + 500mm + 1.4x than with 50D + 500mm cropped. What do you think?
Why would you take away the 1.4x when using the 50D? A high class lens like the 500L can surely match the 50D resolution, even with a 1.4x attached.
ocean7 wrote:
I too would believe so but I am thinking that maybe with so many megapixels we could be well over Canon's best lenses resolution. The experts will tell us, but I start to believe that for instance for shooting birds you can get better results say with a 30D + 500mm + 1.4x than with 50D + 500mm cropped. What do you think?
The 500mm with 1.4 can be and is used with the 1DsMKIII, which is 21Mp.
ulrikft wrote:
Swedish and dutch press conference tomorrow, I'm hoping 5d upgrade, dreading 40d upgrade only. I have a big lot of money burning a hole in my pocket (lot of alternative lenses have soothed me so far, but now i need a full frame sensor :P )
I'm right there with you on this. I think this forum will burst into flames if they hold the 5D II until then, but I think that's exactly what will happen.
bias_hjorth wrote:
Am I the only one thinking this is the smallest upgrade Canon has put on the marked to date?
I really don't get all the whining around here. The 40D wasn't even supposed to be upgraded for 6 months. The 20D from the 10D was a smaller upgrade. The 30D from the 20D was by far the smallest upgrade. Even the 40 from the 30 was a smaller upgrade than this. 1/3rd more pixels and Digic 4 and micro adjust. Oh yeah, and face detection.
Am I the only one thinking this is the smallest upgrade Canon has put on the marked to date?
Pretty much, and that's because the 40D to 50D is among the most significant upgrades albeit still evolutionary. Obviously you're too young to recall the EOS D60 to 10D or 20D to 30D updates. Now those were really minor tweaks. You really need to skip a generation or two if you want to see a huge improvment.
No you are not alone. I'm kinda shocked at the timing of the upgrade and glad I did not buy a 40D. This is almost as bad as Apples iPhone screwup - and they gave the early adopters a retroactive rebate.
I think the AF micro adjust is the only thing worthwhile - but it should have been in the 40D so its nothing to praise now. You want people to upgrade from 40D to 50D for that one feature?
The megapixels don't impress me.
bias_hjorth wrote:
Am I the only one thinking this is the smallest upgrade Canon has put on the marked to date?
Let alone face detection almost seems like a joke.
