dumb megapixel related question

Sharpness, no, but everything is relative and theres a certain "swings and roundabouts" effect here, where a gain in one area is seen as a cost elsewhere. We get more MP in our image which gives us a smoother product with better tonal graduation but at a cost. Canons job is to minimise the downside while maximising the upside.

Diffraction is often quoted as a big problem, but Canon themselves remain upbeat about controlling it.

The other big issue oft quoted is noise, but look at the advances made from, say the 30D to the new 1D Mk4, the level of noise apparent at 400ISO in the 30D is now only seen at maybe 1600ISO in a camera with twice the MP.

The truth is we are still in digitals infancy, we have no idea where the technology will take us. I fully expect to live to see cameras offering many hundreds of MP instead of "only" the low tens we see now.

then the question is, the 1d mk iii has only a 10mp sensor, despite other canon cameras having 18-24.

most nikon prosumer and pro cameras hover around 10-12 while canons have up to 18.

i've read a bunch of articles on the subject, but really can't seem to shake that megapixels don't make up as much of the picture as people like them to.

especially since i've seen friends take some incredible photos with the d60's puny photosensor.

Nikon are just beginning to stretch the MP numbers. Unlike Canon, Nikon don't manufacture their own sensors, which means they are at the mercy of suppliers. Companies like Sony, who Nikon buy from, have their own markets to consider and Nikon must wait in line for crumbs to fall from the table.

Nikon have made the best of it. They know their limitations and have used what they have very well. Low noise is often quoted as a Nikon advantage due to its lower pixel counts, but I think they soften the image in camera, even RAWs, and prefer the untouched "warts and all" approach that Canon uses.

dontcallmeash wrote in post #9751677
then the question is, the 1d mk iii has only a 10mp sensor, despite other canon cameras having 18-24.

The 1D mkIII is no longer in production, having been replaced by the 16MP 1D mkIV.

yeah, I've read those articles, too. Having moved from a 10MP camera to an 18MP camera I have discovered that those articles are bull. In a perfect world where we are all flawless with our in-camera compositions and always have glass that is long enough to get the shots we want then 10MP is more than enough. In the real world we sometimes get the composition wrong in camera (or simply didn't have a long enough lens attached to the camera) and we need to do a little cropping when we get back home on the computer. When you click on the crop tool in PS those extra pixels are a -really- nice thing to have.

krb,

"When you click on the crop tool in PS those extra pixels are a -really- nice thing to have".

It's good to get confirmation from a user, what you've just written is music to my ears but is very rarely mentioned.

When I replace my current 30D (later this year?) I know I cannot warrant buying a 600 or 800mm lens, so a 400 plus 1.4x converter will need to continue to work for me on a FF body. Of course this means I will have to crop to get back to my present "subject in the frame" size and to end up with similar pixel numbers would be pointless so I need to be looking at 32MP at the very least to justify the move to FF.