If more MP means more noise, why not just downsize to offset.

I see that many complain that canon is too MP focus. I do know that more MP means the smaller light gathering 'holes' to gather photons on the image sensor and that leads to less sensitivity(more noise). However with more MP, we can use 2 of the 'holes' as one which means the size is now doubled. To simply put, why not just downsize our 18MP image so that the noise becomes so small to be seen? i see that more of an advantage. With more MP, we get options to crop more, bigger prints and downsize when the noise is too much.

if you do what you are saying you end up with 4.5 MP if you do it in both dimensions.

if you only do it in one dimension you will end up with stripes.

Exactly!

Noise should only be measured at final Print / Output, NOT at the sensor level. So more MP does NOT actually equal more noise, it's a common misunderstanding. - http://www.luminous-landscape.com …enchmarking_cam​eras.shtml

You can follow our recent discussion here - https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=995957

SASman wrote in post #11839858
Noise should only be measured at final Print / Output, NOT at the sensor level. So more MP does NOT actually equal more noise, it's a common misunderstanding. - http://www.luminous-landscape.com …enchmarking_cam​eras.shtml

Now why are you coming in here and trying to make sense?

While you are absolutely correct, I have long ago given up trying to reason with those whose only apparent reason for owning a camera is to pixel peep at 100%. Final print/output? What's that?

The optimal sensor pixel size depends on many things but w todays
CMOS, Bayer, and Camera logic anything below 5 um is tabu.
If you think not buy a ps sensor pixel size in a DSLR.

pknight wrote in post #11839883
Now why are you coming in here and trying to make sense?

While you are absolutely correct, I have long ago given up trying to reason with those whose only apparent reason for owning a camera is to pixel peep at 100%. Final print/output? What's that?

haha

Anything more than 10Mp is a waste. I'd rather they focused on more bells and whistles than more megapizels. How about a built in drop out tripod, or a cellphone/computer/key​board and radio control for planes and cars and I would really like a unicycle with a padded seat to get around town on.

C'mon canonloader...that's ridiculous....padded seat??

And reflectors on the pedals, maybe a horn.

i am holding out for the ultimate low noise camera with only 1 FF pixel. Or maybe medium format?

This may be A stupid question (like comparing apples to oranges) I've got a 50D @ 15.1 MP and it's pretty noisy. I'm looking at a 1D mark III @ 10.1 MP. Now granted it's a 1D model compared to a 50D but is the image quality going to be better on the 1D MK III because of the 10.1 MP over the 15.1 MP of the 50D?

IMO, the 1D3 was the best camera Canon ever made. I had a 7D and sold it to buy a 1D3 when the prices started to come down. I only sopld it cause I wasn't using it, but I am sure I will own another one in the future.

Rob Douglas wrote in post #11840733
This may be A stupid question (like comparing apples to oranges) I've got a 50D @ 15.1 MP and it's pretty noisy. I'm looking at a 1D mark III @ 10.1 MP. Now granted it's a 1D model compared to a 50D but is the image quality going to be better on the 1D MK III because of the 10.1 MP over the 15.1 MP of the 50D?

Well imo the 50D era of APS-C sensor was not one of Canon's finest. I think the generation before and after had lower noise.

A few years ago people said anything more than 6 is a waste, now 10MP and in a few years it will be 18MP or more is a waste. It will keep going up and technology shows the IQ and ISO capability is getting better and better.

That is fact.

Because it doesn't.