megapixels????

I keep reading that some users complain about crop cameras having too many pixels yet they keep increasing with each new model? I always thought that more was better for larger photos, but some of the reading has me confused and then looking the competing Nikons, they mostly only have 12 mps? Why and what is the big deal with cameras with over 12 mp's and does it make a difference from crop to ff?

adds to noise. The theory is that Canon have to keep the MP count going up to sell cameras to Jo Public but with so many people reading reviews before they buy and the 7D in any case being too expensive for most casual buyers I doubt this. I'm sure if a 12MP version of the 7D had been incredibly noise free up to say 1200ISO then they would have made it that way.

If I understand correctly, the concern is that the high amount of megapixels is causing a higher amount of noise or a decrease in overall picture iq than compared with the same camera with less pixels

Your confused, because after the 10Mp cameras, the ad men had to start lying through their teeth, which of couse, we all know is a lie. The 10-12Mp range has turned out to be the perfect all around digital sensor size for the 1.3 to 1.6x crop factor sensors. No lie.

The size of the sensor is limited to certain dimension for the format. More megapixels in that same amount of realestate means smaller pixels. Now the electronic noise of a sensor is a factor of the solid state technology used (CCD, CMOS, etc) and is pretty constant with the exception or revolutionary redesigns like back illumination. With the smaller pixel sized sensor that increasing MPIXs drives, you can only capture less photons than the old less mpix sensors with less dense bigger pixel photosites. So less photons against a noise constant value and you have a smaller signal to noise ratio, that is the headroom above the noise floor and the point a photosite is fully saturated with photons. You can compensate to some extent with SW processing of the signal, which pretty much all the big makers are doing now. But you can only do so much with SW and ultimately you do better with a less dense sensor which has a bigger signal to noise ratio, giving you more signal detail to deal with. I would love to see a 7D feature body with a sensor density somewhere between that of the 40D and 50D.

The larger amount of megapixels the better glass you're going to need for clarity. So more isn't always better.


Also, how many of us really make prints at 24" + ? You don't REALLY need anything at all over 15mp, unless you're working specifically with stuff as your specialty.

All a lot of good info, thanks for clairifying it.

40mp is being offered by medium format manufacturers and Canons next top-of-the-range 1Ds pro camera is rumoured to be bringing around 32mp to the table. If true, it shows that Canon believe that a steadily increasing mp is the way forward.

Nikon on the other hand have chosen a different route, or just maybe they are still playing catch-up? They use a lower pixel count and produce a very different product. Which manufacturer is right and which is wrong is up to us as individuals. I happen to prefer Canons approach. High pixel counts and high resolution RAW images with minimal interference which I can clean up myself in post processing. To me Nikons NEF's seem soft, the in camera anti-noise processing having gone too far.

There is no right or wrong and it's up to the customer which way to jump. The pixel count is just part of the equation. Dynamic range, pattern noise, banding etc, etc, all play a part.

canonloader wrote in post #10599754
Your confused, because after the 10Mp cameras, the ad men had to start lying through their teeth, which of couse, we all know is a lie. The 10-12Mp range has turned out to be the perfect all around digital sensor size for the 1.3 to 1.6x crop factor sensors. No lie.

Mitch, aren't you being redundant when you say that the ad men are lying?

Do you know how to tell when an ad man is lying?

(I hope that I do not need to state the obvious: when his lips are moving).

I have to admit that I do like the wonderful resolution and overall IQ of my 7D despite the very small amount of increase in noise at low ISO. There are noise-ware programs that do a fantastic job of cleaning up the noise without degrading the resolution very much. In the absence of pixel peeping, the noise can't be seen ... and printed images are not adversely affected by the small amount of noise since output sharpening does more to an image than noise ever did.

Bill, ad men are redundant. Just tell the facts as they really are, and I will decide if I need the product.

I found the 7D gave very nice RAW images. I find that my used MkIII gives even better RAW images and I don't need to buy a new computer and software to edit them.

Let me ask this. If the Canon factory went back into the production of the MkIII, and lowered the price to $2500 a copy, how many do you think they would sell? The answer is, all of them.

canonloader wrote in post #10600435
Bill, ad men are redundant. Just tell the facts as they really are, and I will decide if I need the product.

I found the 7D gave very nice RAW images. I find that my used MkIII gives even better RAW images and I don't need to buy a new computer and software to edit them.

Let me ask this. If the Canon factory went back into the production of the MkIII, and lowered the price to $2500 a copy, how many do you think they would sell? The answer is, all of them.

The world need ad men because:
of this

canonloader wrote in post #10599754
Your confused, because after the 10Mp cameras, the ad men had to start lying through their teeth, which of couse, we all know is a lie. The 10-12Mp range has turned out to be the perfect all around digital sensor size for the 1.3 to 1.6x crop factor sensors. No lie.

That's interesting! I have both the 40D and 50D. I will be doing an experiment soon. I would like to really see if my 50D has more noice than my 40D if all other things are the same.

Bill Boehme wrote in post #10602140
The world need ad men because:
of this

LMAO!

at low ISOs, pack those suckers in there, they don't really hurt and usually help (look at MF cameras).
it's at high ISOs where they make it hard to make good looking pictures. If you have less pixels, that means they can be bigger and gather more light. That's a good thing. Canon has basically gone the route where they give us as much MP as they possibly can while keeping noise reasonable. It could be better at LOW ISOs if they concentrated on those. It could be better at HIGH ISOs if they cut the pixels in halfish. But they go for the best all around approach, at least in a marketing standpoint.

18mp
6400

sounds like the best thing since sliced bread doesn't it?

As others have said before me, both companies did choose vastly different paths and it kind of reflects with it's users. Canon users have the luxury of cropping immensely because of all the resolution and it sort of shows in newer users that love the "spray'n'pray" mentality.

Nikon chose lower noise over higher resolution but they did cave in with the demand for higher resolution but are increasing it to only 15-16MP since they've stated preserving their ISO capability is first and foremost. It reflects in Nikon users in the sense that I've heard a few say lower MP counts make you think more (coming from a D2x user) about the shots your taking sort of like in the film days. I personally believe that's a good mentality regardless of what your using, thinking about the shot before you take it is a healthy practice and will increase your skill overall. Because of that, when someone markets to me, marketing MP is blowing smoke and will actually drive me away from a product since it's more of the pixel size and quality of the light being gathered than how many pixels are on a sensor or how much I can crop.

side note : I know there are people who crave MP or actually need it, me as an end user and for my personal uses, I can get by with 6MP or would love a 10/12MP camera with current or next gen sensor tech because of mainly indoor, high ISO usage.

Bill Boehme wrote in post #10602140
The world need ad men because:
of this