I am feeling the need to go ahead and correct much of the misinformation that you are discussing. While many of your observations are based in subjective opinion, my problem is coming from the fact that your facts are being either mistaken of fabricated.
I have avoided going into this because I didnt want to ruffle your feathers, but at the same time, I don't want people to be led to improper conclusions based on facts that are false.
Originally Posted by SolarTempest
I just got back from my first exhibit at an art gallery! Had several of my photo sets put up on display along with work from other amazing photographers from the area. Very very exciting
. Also sold my first print!
After seeing some of the shots in the exhibit, it is clear to me that the "megapixel race" is complete garbage. I always knew that a few megapixels difference in cameras doesn't have a large effect on image quality, but never really saw the full comparison.
One of the photographers there had some absolutely stunning 8"x12" shots there that just blew me away. The colours, quality, and subjects were out of this world. And what did he use to shoot? A 4mp Nikon D2H. As an aside, he's now shooting a Nikon D200.
Four megapixels and the quality was tack sharp.
There was visually no difference between his 4mp shots and my 6mp shots.
In fact, I'd even say that his shots had far superior quality than any the 8mp Canon photos there (20D and Rebel XT - same sensor).
Just really shows that lenses are the most important factor in getting the best shots possible!
First of all, being in focus is just that. Any camera can do so, and to make up for a lack of focus with a bolstering of megapixels never works. I could show you pictures that are easily as sharp from an old 3.1mp DIGIcam I used to use. ( http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/phot...mples&photo=20
Being in focus is part of the skill of the photographer, and that is the first step. Another point to be made is that many of the covers to image sensors of newer cameras today deliberately soften an image before the light is picked up by the sensor.
The thing is, an equally focused camera from a higher megapixel camera will produce a more detailed image. Its just a fact. For an exxagerated proof of this fact, please feel free to visit the gigapixel project, at the following link: ( http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery.htm
) The quantity of pixels DOES mean something, as does the sensor size.
Furthermore, you quote that the 20d and the 350d (xt) share the same sensor. Thats plain wrong. The 20d sensor has a max resolution of 3504 x 2336; and is a 8.2 million effective pixel/ 8.5 million photo detector sensor. The 350d has a max resoultion of 3456 x 2304; and is a 8.0 million effective pixel and 8.2 million photo detector sensor. They are inherently DIFFERENT sensors. And this is just brining up the photo detector size. There are MANY MANY differences between these two sensors, which Iwould be happy to list here, but my point is just to ensure that we know they are in fact DIFFERENT sensors.
It has long been said that lenses are important, to which I highly agree. But the problem is, youre negating teh fact that image sensors of today are the film of yesterday. Photographers have long been choosy about what film they use for their work. Today, the digital photographer makes a single 'film' choice to commit to when they purchase an image sensor, which in our case, comes in teh form of a camera body. Unlike the days of chemical exposure, we can't grab any old body and fill it with the film of our choice. When we purchase our camera body, we our now choosing the exposure media for the life of that body. So not the body plays a much larger role in the type of image we shoot, as it has the exposure media (ie: sensor) built in. So to write of a quality image to a lens alone, would be just as foolish as to quote the opposite.
Another point: If you took a 4 mp camera, and interpolated the image such that it matched the same resolution of an 8mp image, you WOULD notice a difference between the 2 images. One would be correctly recorded, the other would be software's best guess as to what half of the pixels should look like. Now, if youre looking at a 4mp image, next to a shrunken down 8mp one, of course the images are going to be far more similar in quality. This is simple logic, as you are not 'making up' information to increase the size, you are removing information from the larger image, that the 4 mp sensor may not have ever recorded to begin with.
Megapixels DO mean something.
To add to this post, the D2H is an old pro camera. When it was released in mid 2003, it was considered a professional level camera. Much like the canon 1ds. Youre talking a LOT of power pulled out of that little image sensor. Every piece to that camera was maximized, and that 4 mp camera is many fold the quality of your average 4mp point and shoot of today. Theres a reason those pixels are as beautiful as 4mp can be. The processor in that camera is TOP NOTCH, not to mention its not a CCD NOR a CMOS sensor. Its an entirely different technology called JFET.
Thats like saying... a porsche 911 turbo is just a v6 and is faster than a ford mustang v8. Cylinders mean nothing. Thats blatently WRONG. The porsche just taps every cylinder for all that its worth, if they were given more cylinders they would be even faster. (Isnt porsches new supercar a 10 cylinder?) Its a matter of exploiting your resources for what they are worth. That little 4mp camera, the d2h, was 3500. Thats far above and beyond what most 4mp cameras cost when it was released. Its a trade off.
Either way, megapixels DO mean a lot. A LOT. It just happens some cameras pull more out of an equivilant number of pixel sensor than others. And usually have a price point to back it up.
This leads me to my next point. In another thread you posted about cameras, http://forums.cosplay.com/showpost.p...2&postcount=25
, you insinuate that when megapixels are within 2mp of each other, they might as well be the same. Well, as I stated throughout this whole post. Megapixels DO matter, but its EVEN MORE about how the camera extrapolates the recording of light as to the quality of the body youre using.
Lets compare the two you were referring to in that post. The Canon 20D and the Nikon D70.
First, you say "The biggest ups that the 20D has over the D70s is that it's 8mp (vs 6mp) and 5fps (vs 3fps)." I didn't find that either of these were the main elevators for the 20D's higher pricepoint.
You go on to say ".....almost anyone really can't tell the difference between the three (film/20D/D70s)." I beg to differ on this. Perhaps general population, however anyone choosing the higher priced 20d probably is able to note the difference between film, a 20d, and a d70's image. Besides the resolution, the entire image is recorded differently and subtle differences in how each records can be noted by people with a photographic eye.
You also note: "I think a key advantage is that the D70s have built in wireless capabilities (Nikon Creative Lighting System). That allows me to set up remote flashes which can be wirelessly trigged by my on-camera flash, which isn't possible with the Canon unless you spend extra cash to get slave triggers or a commander."
If it's being wirelessly triggered by your on camera flash, doesnt that mean you're using a slave lighting system, which uses photocells to capture incident lighting thereby triggering their slave strobes? If this is the case, you betcha canon can do that.
Now, lets go ahead and review the actual differences between these to cameras.
1) Magnesium Alloy case on the 20D. I believe the d70 uses plastic. ?
2) 8.5 million total pixels CMOS on the 20d. 6.24 megapixel (total) CCD on the d70.
3) 8.2 million effective pixels on the 20d. 6.1 million effective pixels on the d70.
4) 3504 x 2336 resolution on the 20d. 3008 x 2000 on the d70. Thats an entire 500x300 picture missing between the two's resolution.
5) 20d uses, I believe, a 24bit RAW capture. d70 uses a 12bit.
6) 20d has a 9 point manually selectable AF, I believe the d70 is a 6 point non selectable system. (as in it uses auto modes only for deciding af point)
7) 20d has an asa range from 100-3200. d70 is 200-1600.
8) the 20d uses second generation e-ttl metering. The d70 uses first still (i-ttl).
9) The 20d is flash sync cord ready. the d70 is not (requires hot shoe adapter)
10) Not only does the 20d offer 5fps to the d70s 3; but the 20d can continue for 23 frames, the d70 tops off at 12 frames.
Edit => 11) http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Cano...0100_crops.JPG http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Cano...0200_crops.JPG
Which do you think is better?
Bah, I could honestly go on and on about the advantages of the 20d, but there would be no point. I really do think the d70 is a fantastic camera. It is GREAT! But the 20d was built to a different price bracket. And to say that the two cameras are nearly identical leads people to believe that the canon is priced higher without justification.
Basically, I just want everyone to get a fair idea of the facts involved in what you discuss, and I think this post helps clear some mistakes up.
I hope this helps,