I want at least a 20MP camera with a full 32bit HDR capability.
Seriously though, I don't see it stopping anytime soon. Those point and shoots have around 35 MP/cm² pixel density while that 50D only has 4.5 MP/cm².
While I'm not suggesting that DSLRs will have such a high pixel density as those P&S, I think we'll probably see entry level and semi pro bodies going up to around 20MP at least. At the moment it's 12MP and 15MP respectively so maybe by 550D or 70D before the MP race slows down a bit..
It feels like MP upgrades play mostly to an inferiority complex that most of us (photogs) get when something bigger hits the stores. If i look at images as a whole composition, large prints from my 5D, Mk2, 20D,40d aren't really distinguishable from one another in most cases. Alas, I still can't be bothered to produce an 8.2 MP image at a wedding, these days.
I only wished they'd slow down, so that I would spend less.
At the most fundamental level, this is a silly question. You might as well ask if we should stop making faster computers. Technology advances, regardless of what any single company chooses to do, based upon perceived needs and a universal desire to always create something better.
In the end, Canon and every other company will stop making higher Mp sensors as soon as there is absolutely no demand for them. And as long as there is a demand, no individual company can choose to stop or it will be percieved as unable to compete and suffer financially.
This discussion will be very humorous in few years. If you rewind a few years back, we had discussions about "We don't need a 6MP camera, 3MP is plenty of resolution."
I get what you're saying regarding diminishing results, but the camera makers will end up with ways around that. Heck, if they're cramming 14MP into a P&S, they are going to continue putting more pixels on the SLRs. They may come out with some new technologies as a result of the pixel race that will make these high res cameras possible.
From the conclusion of the review: It appears that Canon has reached the limit of what is sensible, in terms of megapixels on an APS-C sensor.
...
Even the sharpest primes at optimal apertures cannot (at least away from the center of the frame) satisfy the 15.1 megapixel sensors hunger for resolution.
There's nothing wrong with adding extra megapixels ... as long as you have the lenses to support this resolution.
Yes, 1.6x camera still haven't caught up with the P&Ss.
But if Canon's sharpest primes at optimal apertures cannot keep up with the sensor resolution, what's the point?
Is Canon going to update their entire lens lineup to match 15+ mpx crop resolution?
Also, do we really want noisy ISO-400, like on G10?
Having read the Dpreview review now ... I don't like how the conclusion was stated. The idea that they are sort of calling for an end to it, almost comes off like an endorsement for a D300 or D700.
Which, would be fine if Dpreview wants to call those the better cams, but the statements in the conclusion almost seem passive aggressive.
edit: to clarify, I was referring this statement -- essentially asking to end the MP war
"It appears that Canon has reached the limit of what is sensible, in terms of megapixels on an APS-C sensor. At a pixel density of 4.5 MP/cm² (40D: 3.1 MP/cm², 1Ds MkIII: 2.4 MP/cm²) the lens becomes the limiting factor. Even the sharpest primes at optimal apertures cannot (at least away from the center of the frame) satisfy the 15.1 megapixel sensors hunger for resolution. Considering the disadvantages that come with higher pixel densities such as diffraction issues, increased sensitivity towards camera shake, reduced dynamic range, reduced high ISO performance and the need to store, move and process larger amounts of data, one could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that at this point the megapixel race should probably stop. One consequence of this is that the 50% increase in pixel count over the 40D results in only a marginal amount of extra detail."
nathanlake wrote:
At the most fundamental level, this is a silly question. You might as well ask if we should stop making faster computers. Technology advances, regardless of what any single company chooses to do, based upon perceived needs and a universal desire to always create something better.
In the end, Canon and every other company will stop making higher Mp sensors as soon as there is absolutely no demand for them. And as long as there is a demand, no individual company can choose to stop or it will be percieved as unable to compete and suffer financially.
+1 ... this is what will happen. But, I guess the question is what should happen. I think the answer might be different on different platforms. On the crop cameras, I think that we are getting to a point of diminishing returns on MP increases. On an upgrade to my 50D, an increase in ISO performance would be more USEFUL than an increase in MP. On a FF 5D mk II class camera, I suspect there is still room for MP increases in the competitive environment ... same for 1D III class.
My question is, would a 50D 15MP image sampled down to 10MP with Bicubic Sharper in Photoshop look better/sharper than 40D image at its full 10MP resolution? Assuming it was taken with the same lens of course.
If it does look better and you have some spare change, I'd say that's enough reason to "upgrade" from 40D to 50D.
I would have rather seen weather sealing on the 50d as opposed to the MP upgrade, to match the D300.
I doubt you'll find anybody who says the D700 isn't better than the 50D.
Don't stop until 35mm equivalent is reached, that would be 50MP AND with equivalent dynamic range ~ my school is if you lose the highlights to save shadows.
PS should show a 300MB file when opened ~ then we'll have what we had with 35mm Kodachrome in a Bronica with 35mm back
gbee wrote:
Don't stop until 35mm equivalent is reached, that would be 50MP AND with equivalent dynamic range ~ my school is if you lose the highlights to save shadows.
PS should show a 300MB file when opened ~ then we'll have what we had with 35mm Kodachrome in a Bronica with 35mm back
35mm is NOT equivalent to 50MP. If you have a scan that large, you are just resolving fuzzy grain, not detail. The current high end digital SLRs are resolving more useful information and better tonality than 35mm scans. You just have to know how to process the digital files.
For 1.6x crop cams IMO 12MP is the limit. For FF I think when they reach the pixel density of a 40D they should stop. So for FF there is some room left to go above 21MP's. Either this or come up with better resolving lenses. But I doubt that will happen. Even the new 24L doesn't have a significant better MTF than its predecessor.
The argument of "diminishing returns" is only valid if you are able to make that measurement. The average P&S owner, the soccer mom, knows nothing about pixel density, lens diffraction, or dynamic range. She needs something simple that can be used to decide if the camera is good. The number of megapixels is what they have chosen to use and that will continue to be the case for quite some time.
P.S. - That is why P&S Mp numbers are often higher than DSLRs. They are adjusting the product to the buyers demands.
. Chump change for people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Sultan of Brunei, etc.