8.0mp vs. new 10.1mp

I was wondering if there was a major difference between the two, I mean if you took the same picture with both, can you really tell the difference? Also did they add anything else to to the new one?

The short answer is no, there will not be much difference in image quality between the 2 because the difference in square area between the 2 is small. You'd see a much better improvement from a 6 or 8 MP image to the 13MP 5D.

From 6 to 10 you will see some difference but from 8 to 10 not really a big deal.

You can't say there is no difference for 6 to 8 and no difference from 8 to 10, but there is a difference from 6 to 10. There is a potential incremental difference with every increase in MP. The question is, "Can you see it?"

If you display your images on the web or make prints up to about 8" x 12", the difference in resolution is less than the ability of the medium to show with the naked eye. If you make a 24" x 36" you will be able so detect the incremental improvements in fine detail.

Whether this makes any difference depends on how you are going to use the image and how important fine detail is.

There is no real improvement in image quality, although if you were shooting a far away subject and needed to dramatically crop the image, the increased pixel density may be of a little benefit. On the other hand, I have seen comparisons taken at higher ISOs which show the new sensor can be noisier above 400 ISO (again due to increased pixel density).

In normal use you are unlikely to find any significant difference, apart from bragging rights when discussing the camera's specs.

Image quality is determined more by the quality of the sensor and pixels, rather than the actual number - it's all about quality not quantity. Of course at the budget end, consumers judge quality by the Mp count. My friend has a 10Mp compact and couldn't believe that my 20D had only 8Mp, he honestly believed that his would take better pics, despite only costing about a fifth of the 20D body alone.

They did a test that was shown on TV the other day. It was a picture printed to about 6x8. They had one version with 10 mpix,the other was 1mpix. The audience could not see the difference. So the answer to your question is. No you can not see a difference between 6, 8 or 10 mpix. Except maybe that the 10mpix will have more noise.

I posted a similar question and the consensus seems to be that for most prints you would not see a difference. The point was made that more MP would technically capable of better pictures. The difference in the bodies also includes better AF system, Picture Styles, more user definable custom functions. If you are considering purchase of one or the other go with the XTi.

Posted by Celter: "Except maybe that the 10mpix will have more noise."
I don't think you can correlate more pixels with more noise. I depends on sensor size and so on. The 5D at 12.8 is, by all accounts, one of the lowest noise cameras out there. Others...am I correct?

I didn't really think there would be too noticeable of a difference (I'm not planning on blowing them up to poster size etc). Just spent the last 2 hours reading up on them, from the reviews I read a lot of people seem to be quite pleased with upgrading from XT to XTi. The new features seem nice like the bigger LCD screen, among other things. The XTi is $175 more for me, you guys think it's worth it?

KCMO Al wrote in post #2347778
Posted by Celter: "Except maybe that the 10mpix will have more noise."
I don't think you can correlate more pixels with more noise. I depends on sensor size and so on. The 5D at 12.8 is, by all accounts, one of the lowest noise cameras out there. Others...am I correct?

Yes, the 5D is very low noise, because the pixel density with the FF sensor is much lower than with the crop sensor.

The 8 vs 10 comparison we are discussing is on the same size sensor and tests I have seen, show it to be noisier with the 400D (10Mp sensor) than the 350D (8Mp). Only really noticeable above 400 ISO though.

vicereine wrote in post #2347800
The XTi is $175 more for me, you guys think it's worth it?

Yes, if you think that those added features are important to you.

There isn't going to be any significant difference in the image quality, so it's the features you are paying for.

If you want to improve the image quality, you might do better with a used XT and put the saving towards better glass. Top quality lenses will make far more difference to IQ than the extra pixels.

Only you know how much difference the new features will make to you.

celter wrote in post #2347676
They did a test that was shown on TV the other day. It was a picture printed to about 6x8. They had one version with 10 mpix,the other was 1mpix. The audience could not see the difference. So the answer to your question is. No you can not see a difference between 6, 8 or 10 mpix. Except maybe that the 10mpix will have more noise.

That test proves that people's eyesight, and possibly the printer used, cannot resolve more detail than is provided by a 1 MB camera on a 6 x 8 print. That does not mean they would not be able to tell the difference on a 60 x 80 print. You cannot take a simple test for one situation and extrapolate it to all other situations.

ScottE wrote in post #2347654
You can't say there is no difference for 6 to 8 and no difference from 8 to 10, but there is a difference from 6 to 10. There is a potential incremental difference with every increase in MP.

But to be complete you have to add that an absolute increase of 2 megapixels is different when going from 6 to 8 than it is from 8 to 10. In neither case is it a monumental difference, but proportionally it's a bigger increase from 6 to 8 than it is from 8 to 10. If you're just thinking in terms of 'how big a 300 dpi print can I make without upressing', then you'll see that the practical differences are not going to present themselves that often.

celter wrote in post #2347676
So the answer to your question is. No you can not see a difference between 6, 8 or 10 mpix.

It all depends on your output. To print any of these at a small size, like 4x6 or whatever, will require throwing away pixels in the case of all of them. But if you print them at 24x30, I can guarantee you that there will be a difference between each of them.

Here's the analogy:

You have a Ferrari Testarossa and a Ford Pinto. Which one drives better at 20 mph? Which one drives better at 40 mph? Which one drives better at 60 mph?

A Ford Pinto can drive 20 mph just as well as a Ferrari. But once you get to 60 mph, you'll start to see the Ford reach its peak performance while the Ferrari sails.

Now which one drives better at 120 mph? No question.

So you just can't make any meaningful comparison between these cameras unless you're challenging them in a way that will actually separate one from the other. The question a prospective buyer has to ask is whether that difference is meaningful enough to justify the price. If it's a matter of making a 24x30 print (i.e. poster size), some people will go their lives never printing that big.

I love my 4MP sensor =)