10D out dated? By consumer Point and shoots??

[photography By Evangelos]

Am starting to see a lot of point and shoot digital cameras with pixels around 6.3Pix for around $599.00 and the new Sony witch is 8.0 Pixels. Is canon dragging there feet with the pixels? I know Fuji is on the way with a new camera witch will have a lot more pixels and Sigma is also working on a new camera and Nikon will have a replacement for the D100 soon and the canon digital rebel has the same pixel count as the 10D Seam’s to me we need a 10D replacement soon or a new camera with more pixels and a full frame CMOS for a price far less than the 1Ds. Maybe the new EOS 3 Digital? There is a gap in the canon system you have to spend $8,000 grand to get a full frame 11.0 Pix camera that’s just crazy or $4,000 for a 1D when Kodak has a camera with 14.0 Pix full frame for $4,000 grand. I expect that canon will be the first to have a full frame camera with around 8.0 to 9.0 pixels full frame and be some ware in middle of the 10D and the 1D cameras in price. The new Nikon D2H will be less than the 1D in price by a grand so $3000 VS the 1D price of $4,000 and the new Nikon is better so I also expect to see a replacement soon for that camera or an upgraded model.

[Longwatcher]

I am not worried about the Sony F828 with 8MP at 2.8um. The noise levels should be so high you will have trouble doing the equivilant of ISO 400, which is probably why they added the night light ability to the sensor.

The pixel pitch, which informed consumers should be paying attention, to is best at around 8um for visible to near IR spectrum. The 10D is 7.8um and the 1Ds is 8.2um if I remember right. (I previously researched this, but don't feel like looking them up again). With the sony at 2.8um the overall qulaity of the prints will be better from the 7.8um of the 10D sensor.

Other then its IR capability, the only think I really like about the Sony is the revised color filter sceen of RGBE. Which should result in better colors. If Canon adopted that, but keeps the better pixel pitch it would result in a superior camera.

As I have mentioned before, Given the optimum pixel size, technology, and body size; the maximum pixel count I expect to see from a 35mm body is about 25MP, although given Sony going down to a 2.5um pixel pitch may result in hearing about 50+MP cameras. The Professionals will continue to remain in the 8um range though, because science says that is the best from a SNR factor. The 1Ds is pretty close to maximum for the camera body.

Think of it this way, You can have a quart of Coors 3.2 or a bottle of Sam Adams, which way do you go? They both claim to be beer and obviously their is more 'beer' in the coors quart.

I am hoping all of the camera producers and the reviewers start including the pixel size in the camera stats as the consumers need to be made aware of which cameras are actually better.

Just my opinion backed up by some science and a bad memory.

[disclaimer - not advocating beer drinking as I am alergic to grain alcohols so can't drink the stuff myself, but recognize the difference between tap water and beer, in my case I will stick to good Russian vodka or California Merlot which I can drink]

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

Hi,

Don't fool yourself with MP counts, offcourse it looks nice, but be real honest, what do you do with your shots ?

If you print on A2 format you WILL need a bigger MP count when you (like me) print the biggest on A3+ format the 10D in RAW will do a splendid job of it.

The image quality is all that counts, I have seen shots from a 5MP camera and they are worse than I made with my HP850 on 3.96 MP.

Noise levels indeed, true color, blacks etc. etc.

Greetings,
Frank

[KennyG]

Don't be all starry eyed about how many pixels a camera has unless you are one of the "mine has more than yours" brigade. It is only one factor in the equation.

Most press photographs are taken with a 4mp camera (1D for example) as their requirement is for speed and ruggedness. Adding more pixels is not going to make a newspaper print better pictures.

6mp cameras such as the 10D can produce 10x8 images that are so good it is very difficult to tell they are not film. The 300D looks as though it can do a similar job.

1Ds pictures are printed 'as is' or at lower resolutions in high quality magazines.

A Sony 8mp camera is not better than a 300D for example, just because it has more pixels. You are making assumptions as to the quality of the final image.

Sorry, but you are making wild and stupid judgements if pixel count is your yardstick. Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who make the same sort of mistakes.

[photography By Evangelos]

Thank you all for your replies. I was just making good conversation and just noticed what is taking place in the digital market place thank you all. By the way it is not nice to call some one stupid like Kenny G did. I always value every ones view like longwacther who always has good info. This is not a judgment just an observation thanks.

[hugodrax]

This is a valid concern and I can see consumers using the Pixelcount as the measure of camera performance. Unfortunately this means vendors will only concentrate on increasing pixel count even if it means poor quality. A high MP is a nice easy sell to the average joe VS trying to explain the complexity of pixel size VS quantity etc...

Thankfully the serious amateurs and pros will know the difference and Canon/nikon etc.. semipro and pro gear will continue to evolve in the right direction.

[lightandlife]

P&S is stuck with its lens. Your post only shows P&S digital is almost equivalent to P&S film.

10D's potential is limited only by its lens.

With P&S, it is 1% inspiration and 99% handcaipped zoom. With 10D, it is 1% inspiration and 99% lens. Does this make sense_

[CyberDyneSystems]

KennyG wrote:


Sorry, but you are making wild and stupid judgements if pixel count is your yardstick. Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who make the same sort of mistakes.


KennyG

I think you should seriously consider both editing your initial post to remove the insult, and apologizing.

:)

This is, as the author said, a discussion of the trends occuring in the digital market, and there is no need to begin hurling insults at a member who has been a productive contributor to this forum for some time. I know I have learned a good deal form his posts. You may too some day. :)

[DVWarrior]

Good for Sony...the bigger the better it will be for all of us..6MP is 2 years technology (2001) it needs the prosumer boys to kick Canon and the likes into touch, we are all looking for a full frame "D" camera without the added price tag and the only way you get one is for the Sonys to frighten Canon into submission...so stop crying... lets get rid of these sub standard 1.6 converted cameras ASAP.

[Longwatcher]

[b]. I always value every ones view like longwacther who always has good info. This is not a judgment just an observation thanks.

Thanks, I don't 'always' give out good info, but I do try to correct myself when I am wrong and keep out of things I know nothing about to the best of my ability. I also presume that this forum is so we can learn from each other. I know I learn things all the time.

[hugodrax]

I do not understand the issue with 6.3mp. That MP number is the sweetspot and If they came out with a full frame 6mp with increased dynamic range I would choose it over a 11mp fullframe with smaller pixels/less range/higher noise

[ldivinag]

lightandlife wrote:
P&S is stuck with its lens. Your post only shows P&S digital is almost equivalent to P&S film.

10D's potential is limited only by its lens.

With P&S, it is 1% inspiration and 99% handcaipped zoom. With 10D, it is 1% inspiration and 99% lens. Does this make sense_



this is the reason i'm "retiring" my coolpix 950...

time to get to the big boys. granted, the 950 only had 2MP, but i mean i had a horrible time shooting this one event!!!!!

the P&S with it's dual viewpoint killed a few great shots... ARGGGGGGG

that's why ever since, i knew an SLR had to be it. and the 10D just happened to be it... ;)

[Belmondo]

I had a Nikon 995 and I gave it to my brother. He loves it and is taking wonderful pictures with it. At the time, I had two (2) G2's, and felt they were altogether superior cameras, resolution notwithstanding.

I've since gone to the 10D and feel I'm well situated for a good while now---and when advances in technology make it totally obsolete, I still have a good selection of fine lenses to carry on with with whatever body I purchase next.

As to the previous discussion on resolution, I'm extremely satisfied with the 10D's 6.3 megapixels, and can't anticipate that resolution alone will cause me to abandon it anytime soon.