I remember reading a statement by a top Canon exec stating the area of greatest improvement in upcoming dSLRs will be signal to noise ratio, especially at higher ISOs. That's what would really motivate me to upgrade to a newer model. Imagine ISO 200 quality at ISO 1600.
"Um, can't they just put the circuitry under the sensor array?"
I'm not sure, not being an EE and all but wouldn't you introduce noise (heat) into the equation by putting circuitry (resistance) under the photo sites?
If they triple (or even just double) the RAW buffer capacity in the 20D, if they improve ISO 1600 even more, if they replace the $160 (!) junky plastic battery grip, and if they work out the funny little 20D glitches/quirks, I'd be very interested. If they just make a 12-MP 20D, I'm not interested--although I wouldn't complain if that brought down the price of the current 20D.
The megapixel race isn't over, but it is slowing down. My guess is that there's a sweet spot somewhere in the 8-20MP range that will satisfy the majority of the DSLR users on this forum. Some photographers here are already content at 8MP, and there are pros who have dropped their medium format rigs in favor of the 16MP 1DsMKII. Resolution will continue climbing to the highest technologically possible values for some cameras, but these high-end models will likely serve increasingly niche markets.
Image quality, on the other hand, will keep improving. Some have mentioned dynamic range as one of the next areas of improvement and I agree. However, I'm even more excited about the trend of significant noise reduction in higher ISO ranges, as demonstrated by the 1D MKII and 20D cameras.
For example, imagine buying a small, lightweight, pro-quality Canon EF 50 f/0.7 USM lens for $300. In terms of low-light performance (DOF issues aside) that's essentially what you'll have with a 50mm f/1.4 if Canon manages to reduce noise levels enough to produce clear images at ISO 12800. Frankly, I'd rather have a stack of noise-free ultra-high ISO values at my disposal than enough pixels to print razor-sharp billboards...
I don't need a bigger megapixel count, I do want a bigger viewfinder, bigger LCD monitor and a bigger buffer than my 10D now has. I was one of those people that didn't even consider upgrading to the 20D. And I may not upgrade to the decade if it doesn't have significant advantages over what I'm already using.
melissa1959 wrote:
I do want a bigger viewfinder, bigger LCD monitor and a bigger buffer than my 10D now has.
I agree on the viewfinder, at a recent family gathering my dad asked me to take a picture of him and my mom with his old EF Film Body. I nearly fell over at the size difference between his and the viewfinder on my 10D.
Doesn't NASA use a 112 MegaPixel sensor / Digital camera on either the hubble or the space station ?
I wonder at what point will MegaPixel size be enough.
Someone on the thread mentioned earlier that the 1DsMkII's 16.7 Megapixel has the equivalent image quality of medium format....nice.
Does anyone know if and/or how close are the 20D or Rebel or 1D MkII sensors in comparison to 35mm film. Or are we at the same level as 35mm at 8.2 Megapixel.
pascal03 wrote:
Does anyone know if and/or how close are the 20D or Rebel or 1D MkII sensors in comparison to 35mm film. Or are we at the same level as 35mm at 8.2 Megapixel.
