George.ML wrote:
...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 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?
Exactly. I'm fine with more MP, but not at the expense of reduced image quality.
The way towards progress is to push the envelope, find the limitations and then find a way past them. Even if the current technology or methodology doesn't allow it and it seems like we've hit an upper limit, they need to keep pushing to find that next break through.
Remember, the speed of sound was once and insurmountable barrier.
but the push on MP needs to be balanced with pushing on Higher (usable) ISO and great DR. More MP for the sake of more MP isn't going to do anyone any good.
First of all my primary cameras are the D3, D700, 5D, and 1DsMkIII. That said we have a 50D and I have tested it personally and in my opinion the DPR review is total crap. Flawed in many ways but in particular, at this specific moment, if you want the best quality image out of the 50D you have got to use DPP and not ACR as they did. The image detail seems to be in the raw file and better than the 40D which isn't bad at all. That said and to the point of this thread my opinion is that the high end DLSR APS-C manufacturers are all caught up in the megapixel wars. To me it is not relevant what the MP is if the image quality is there for the size image I need to deliver to the customer or myself. Really pretty simple. I still carry around a Canon D60 from time to time when I am doing personal fun shots on weekends and I love what it delivers as well as the 20D and D200. The full frame DLSR's at 21-25MP are delivering excellent quality at the moment and I personally don't need more right now. As to the D300 and 50D and the like they need to focus on IQ from now on before all else in my opinion. We did have a 5DMkII for a week and I think it is going to be a major success.
nathanlake wrote:
The number of megapixels is what they have chosen to use and that will continue to be the case for quite some time.
Canon and other manufacturers are of course happy to abuse this misconception in order to make a buck.
That's why objective reviews are very helpful here - so that buyers can be informed of the real 'benefits' of having lots of megapixels.
jcolwell wrote:
You don't encourage progress and innovation by setting arbitrary barriers.
I don't believe anyone is talking about building a wall but rather delivering better results in several key areas one of which has got to be image quality. Being an EE by education I am all about moving the ball up the field, however, it your 50 inch LCD television had a snowy and ghosted picture you wouldn't be too excited about the size.
George.ML wrote:
Canon and other manufacturers are of course happy to abuse this misconception in order to make a buck.
That's why objective reviews are very helpful here - so that buyers can be informed of the real 'benefits' of having lots of megapixels.
I would not consider it abuse as much as convenience. If Canon suddenly announced that they were not going to increase the number of megapixels in their next great P&S..and tried to tell people about pixel density, and reaching the limts of lens resolution...they would lose customers in a hurry. The customer has to make the decision to judge a product based on different metrics. It is not up to Canon.
davenfl wrote:
I don't believe anyone is talking about building a wall but rather delivering better results in several key areas one of which has got to be image quality. Being an EE by education I am all about moving the ball up the field, however, it your 50 inch LCD television had a snowy and ghosted picture you wouldn't be too excited about the size.
It is not as if pixel density has increaed and all other things have stayed the same. Unless I am mistaken, noise levels in Canon and Nikon cameras have come way down even as pixel density has increased. That is a huge improvement.
nathanlake wrote:
It is not as if pixel density has increaed and all other things have stayed the same. Unless I am mistaken, noise levels in Canon and Nikon cameras have come way down even as pixel density has increased. That is a huge improvement.
I don't question that for a moment but my point is simply that the MP's are sufficent and the manufacturers are capable of increasing IQ is they so choose which would seem reasonable.
John Power wrote:
Why should it stop? The MF digitals certainly aren't.
Because they have bigger sensors in the first place... I think the only way to continue the MP war is either to make better resolving lenses (which does nothing for high ISO and DR) or to make bigger sensors (like digital MF or the Leica S2). More MP's on a 1.6x crop sensor with current technology will not be a good thing IMO...
The fact is, though, that an 8 MP image is sufficient resolution (on an APS-C or larger sensor) for printing extremely detail images up to 12x18, and makes quite good images up to 20x30. Few photographers ever print larger than 12x18. The new 21MP cameras can do extremely detailed 20x30 images. With 3MP cameras, you still couldn't print all that large. For me, at 8MP, I've got enough resolution for 99% of the prints I make or want to make, and I've even printed 6MP images at 20x30 and gotten great results. Frankly, I have little desire for a 21+MP sensor, because I don't want to deal with the size of the files. I'd love a 5D II, make no doubt...but I'd love a 5D II if it were still a 12MP camera. Now, if I were a landscape photographer that printed very large images quite often, I would want as much resolution as I could get.
There will always be a need for more resolution for some photographers. However, I think 10-12MP is enough for the vast majority of photographers...the rest is just excess.
Yes, they should have stopped with the 40D - it already had too many pixels. The DPR review just shows that it's a purely marketing move on their part - there's virtually no positive quality difference between the two cameras. Canon has completely lost it. Never thought I'd see the day where Nikon would become leaders in image quality, as well as the specification of their bodies, but there you have it. This just reinforces my decision to jump ship.
Daan B wrote:
Because they have bigger sensors in the first place... I think the only way to continue the MP war is either to make better resolving lenses (which does nothing for high ISO and DR) or to make bigger sensors (like digital MF or the Leica S2). More MP's on a 1.6x crop sensor with current technology will not be a good thing IMO...
They will figure out a way to put a bigger sensor in a 35MM style body Daan. We will then have a "more than full frame" camera...
Lenses for 135 film (a.k.a. 35 mm film) and 36x24 mm sensors project light onto an image circle of a certain size. (Or rectangle, some lenses have shaped baffles. Not to mention a shaped hood.) A bigger sensor will require a substantially larger projection circle that can not be met with existing lenses.
The whole idea that you'd need to build up a new set of glass will put a very serious crimp on any commercially viable plans to go beyond 36x24 mm sensor. Mind you, I'm not saying that's impossible. Just not likely to happen on a large scale, at the volumes of the current crop and full frame dSLRs.
For those of you that voted for Canon to stop the megapixel wars, what are your suggestions to Canon on how they market their future P&S cameras that have the same Mp as last year's model? Keep the following in mind:
1. Image quality is already viewed as being very good.
2. The average consumer knows nothing about cameras except how to turn them on and push the shutter button.
3. Mp have been the major marketing focus for several years now.
4. The competitors will undoubtedly inccrease their Mp count.
Daan B wrote:
[...] I think the only way to continue the MP war is either to make better resolving lenses (which does nothing for high ISO and DR) or to make bigger sensors (like digital MF or the Leica S2). More MP's on a 1.6x crop sensor with current technology will not be a good thing IMO...
One more way to postpone the resolution limit is to move into Foveon territory again. Of course, you have to compensate for the weird way Foveon counts pixels (each of the three layers gets counted).
A 3x10 Mpixel Foveon-like sensor would have the equivalent resolution of a 16 Mpixel sensor with Bayer RGB pattern, with the pixel pitch of only a 10 Mpixel sensor. Since therer is no Bayer interpolation that needs to take place, you can get more detail from resolution limited glass.
Then Id be ok with them using that 50mp sensor on their website
Even on the Powershot G-series with tiny sensors.