Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 22, 2006, 9:26 AM   #61
Senior Member
 
pj1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,914
Default

harana wrote:
Quote:
pj1974 wrote:
Quote:
Earlier in this thread I had said I expecteda 20 Feb release and that it would be called 30D. I guess I was quite close about that.
Paul, You win with better guessing the name and date of 30D release..

I am really disappointed with 8.2MP on 30D. I am going to start a new thread today to understand why I should buy 30D and not chaeper 20D...
Well thanks for the congratulations! I was just lucky!

Although I (also) would have LOVED to see a 10 or 11 megapixel APS-C sized sensor (1.6x crop factor) with LESS noise than the existing 8.2mp sensor I guess development in Canon's labs dictated this wasn't to be... I'm glad that they have a good market (and photographic) understanding that to just add some megapixels but increase noise (because of the decreased per pixel size) would be a BAD thing....

After all 8 megapixels is enough for most of us, I don't even print most of my photos anyway (most stay in digital format!) More megapixels is really only necessary for lots of cropping possibility and / or super large prints! 8MP seems just right for me now....

I don't think you should be too disappointed with the (same) 8.2mp on the 30D, it's a good sensor (noise, performance) and matched with the (same) digic II processor you get good speed too. But I'll check out your new thread to see what you write and what others reply.

Paul
pj1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2006, 9:37 AM   #62
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

That's the hard part (trying to stuff in more photosites without increasing the sensor size, while still maintaining acceptable noise levels, without degrading detail by using in camera noise reduction during the image processing pipeline, which we're seeing in a lot of in newer P&S models).

I applaud Canon for not increasing the megapixel count. It's about time the megapixel race started winding down. I'd prefer it if manufacturers focused more on lower noise and better dynamic range.

Now, I don't mean to imply that some people don't need a higher resolution model, just as some photographers need larger format film cameras.

But, IMO, this megapixel race has gotten a little out of hand (especially in the P&S cameras you see being churned out with more and more photosites being stuffed into smaller and smaller sensors).

So, it's nice to see a new model come out that improves other areas, without trying to "one up" the latest competition with more megapixels (that most consumers don't need anyway for the print sizes they'll use).

When I start to see Nikon D200 owners prefer their Nikon D50 for use in lower light because it's got better noise characteristics at higher ISO speeds, something is wrong. ;-)

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2006, 10:04 AM   #63
Senior Member
 
pj1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,914
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
When I start to see Nikon D200 owners prefer their Nikon D50 for use in lower light because it's got better noise characteristics at higher ISO speeds, something is wrong. ;-)
You said it so well this way, JimC! Nikon seem to have a much better 6mp sensor (D50) noise-wise than their 10.2mp sensor (D200).

About megapixel size, again you said it well. In my personal experience, for the last 6 years I have shot and used digital photos for magazines (obviously not for National Geographic), charity work reports, data projector displays (even up for large churches and group meetings), printing up to A3 size, and most of the time I don't need 8MP for that. (many were fine at 3 megapixels from my Fuji P&S). The real reason I got a DSLR is to increase the dynamic range, lower noise and to get (better quality) photos which would have been hard or impossible with the limitations of a point and shoot.

It seems ridiculous that people seem to want a 7 or 8 megapixel point and shoot which is only usable at ISO settings or 50 to 100, when I would advice them rather to have a 3 or 4 megapixel P&S that allowed decent ISO 400 settings. My Canon Rebel XT / 350D makes good photos even at ISOs or 800 or even 1600, especially with a bit of care and after some post processing work!

Paul
pj1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2006, 10:24 AM   #64
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

In fairness, some people really do need the extra megapixel count, and in a studio setting or where light is not low, noise isn't as much of an issue.

So, there is a legitimate market for higher resolution cameras. But, when you start trying to stuff that many photosites into a sensor smaller than 35mm film, you're going to reach some limitations (and we're seeing that in some of the new higher resolution models).

I'm anxiously awaiting new models based on Sony's higher megapixel imagers from other manufacturers besides Nikon. But, unless there are some significant improvements in noise and dynamic range, I'll certainly pass on them for my needs.

I don't need 10 Megapixels. In fact, I came awfully close to pressing the "buy" button on a 2 Megapixel Kodak DCS Pro 720X that someone listed on Ebay at a bargain price a while back. It's got ISO speeds up to ISO 6400 available (although it's only calibrated through ISO 4000), with super dynamic range. We've come a long ways in image processing since this model was released, too (so images converted with modern raw converters probably have even better dynamic range compared to tools available when it was released. It's high ISO images clean up nicely with modern tools, too (I ran some ISO 6400 images through Noiseware to see).

But, I came to my senses, since I wouldn't want to lug a camera that large around. :-)

However, given advances in technology, I'd certainly take a lower Megapixel Model with better noise characteristics and dynamic range, compared to a 6 Megapixel or higher resolution model with worse noise characterstics and dynamic range, for my limited neeeds.

I've got 8x10" prints from a lowly 2 Megapixel Nikon Coolpix 950 hanging on the wall, beside prints from film, with the prints from the Nikon looking just as good IMO. 2 Megapixels would be cutting it a bit close. But, I see no reason why a 4 Megapixel DSLR model couldn't be designed today with superior noise characteristics and dynamic range compared to most models on the market now, given advances in technology.

But, higher megapixels sells cameras, even when most users of them don't really need the extra resolution for the print and viewing sizes they use.



JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:23 AM.