Reading mode: Light Dark

Article, Is the 50D worth it?

Go to last post
L

livestrong

Member
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Location
New York, New York, US
Why 15 megapixels?

After all, one of Canon’s top of the line bodies, The 1D Mark III, has 10 megapixels and is being used at major events throughout the world. The majority of the breathtaking images from Beijing were taken with either the Mark III or the 12 megapixel Nikon D3. If 10-12 megapixels is good enough for some of the largest magazines and newspapers in the country, then why do we need more? I’m a loyal Canon user, but I have to say, this appears to be marketing hype. Hey Nikon, “I have more megapixels than you”. Personally, I think it’s overkill, and will actually cost users more money. Besides the need for at least 4 GB memory cards, you will also need a bigger hard drive, and more ram to work with these over sized files.

Read the rest of the article here:
http://blog-christography.blogspot.com/2008/09/is-canon-50d-worth-it.html
 
Personally, I can think of many of good reasons for more MPix... you can crop an image more for composition, more detail for landscapes, look better when it's reduced, etc. Not ALL photographers are shooting sports images that will be reproduced in some small format.

I'm sure some others here can give you much better technical reasons than I have... but to me basically MORE data = better.

As for memory cards, I have five 8GB cards that I use with my 10Mpix camera... they're about $33 per... not bad.

I find the 50D to have many appealing features... more pixels is just one of them.

--

-- Doug
 
i think those points were beaten/debated to dead by now...
livestrong said:
Why 15 megapixels?

After all, one of Canon’s top of the line bodies, The 1D Mark III,
has 10 megapixels and is being used at major events throughout the
world. The majority of the breathtaking images from Beijing were
taken with either the Mark III or the 12 megapixel Nikon D3. If
10-12 megapixels is good enough for some of the largest magazines and
newspapers in the country, then why do we need more? I’m a loyal
Canon user, but I have to say, this appears to be marketing hype.
Hey Nikon, “I have more megapixels than you”. Personally, I think
it’s overkill, and will actually cost users more money. Besides the
need for at least 4 GB memory cards, you will also need a bigger hard
drive, and more ram to work with these over sized files.

Read the rest of the article here:
http://blog-christography.blogspot.com/2008/09/is-canon-50d-worth-it.html
Click to expand...
 
...it sounds like an effort to convince himself that he doesn't need the 50D. That's all good but whether other people will need 50D is a different matter. I probably don't need 15 MP either, but I need the other features so I'll be getting one in due course.

--
http://sennaista.smugmug.com/
 
The 1D Mk III has an insane drive speed that makes it an extremely good choice for sports events, especially for magazines that need the best shot available. They don't need megapixels so much as they need THE shot.

The 50D's 15 MPs are very good MPs (low noise), and will come in very handy for cropping.

Not everyone will find the need, for sure; I still find my 30D to be very adequate for what I do.

Is there some aspect of the Megapixel warfare involved? Absolutely. Remember, Canon is in business to make money, and megapixels sell. But if those same megapixels are reasonably good, I don't see a problem.

Bill
 
It's does. Long as you don't compromise IQ for the higher pixel count, such is probably the case for 50D, more MP enables to do the following.

-- When you need more reach with telephoto lens. All wild life shooters know this.

-- When you do make large prints. 50D file is barely large enough to print 300dpi 13x19 without up-rez not to mention 20x30. Files smaller than that have little hope to get sharp print this large

-- It gives you more freedom for cropping. Without 100% VF I tend not to shoot very tight just to be safe. Other times the lens on the camera don't allow you to shoot as close as you like. The ability to do some (server) crop is very useful in post processing.
 
livestrong said:
Why 15 megapixels?

After all, one of Canon’s top of the line bodies, The 1D Mark III,
has 10 megapixels and is being used at major events throughout the
world.
Click to expand...
Apples and oranges. The ID Mark III is FF, the 50D is a crop camera. One might as well say that a P&S camera doesn't need more megapixels than a crop camera.

ppage
 
if a camera company can advance a new high MP camera such as the 50D - and do so by maintaining a higher level of IQ with less noise and improved shooting parameters than some or all of the competition, then this instrument will, by all means, be a resounding success!

--
As always - good shooting....

 
All else being equal, more rez is better. But, with previous tech, more pixels tended to mean more noise and lower dynamic range. Canon found a way to funnel more light into each pixel and to increase the percentage of each photodiode that is capable of receiving light. So, the light-gathering capability of the sensor has increased--not decreased, even though there are more and smaller pixels. Isn't Canon CMOS sensor tech great?
 
PPage said:
Apples and oranges. The ID Mark III is FF, the 50D is a crop camera.
One might as well say that a P&S camera doesn't need more megapixels
than a crop camera.
Click to expand...
1D Mark III is 1.3x crop. But, your point still holds.
 
I'd prefer 10Mpix if it would give me better high ISO. With a fixed chip size the number of photons is fixed so more pixels means fewer photons per pixel and hence a smaller signal to noise ratio for a given exposure time fnumber etc. The lenslets somewhat compensate for this but using lenslets with 10mpix would give better high ISO than the 50D

having said that it looks like Canon has improved high ISO noise and increased megapixles. i take a lot of nature shots at long range so the extra 1.3 "digital" zoom that the 50D has over my 20D is not a bad thing. For example this shot is a major crop and the extra 1.3, square root of the factor of 2 greater pixels, would have helped

 
The "article" is no article at all. It's just a blog from a freelance photographer's page. There's no more influence to it than comments from anyone else on these forums.
 
tom trinko said:
I'd prefer 10Mpix if it would give me better high ISO. With a fixed
chip size the number of photons is fixed so more pixels means fewer
photons per pixel and hence a smaller signal to noise ratio for a
given exposure time fnumber etc. The lenslets somewhat compensate
for this but using lenslets with 10mpix would give better high ISO
than the 50D
Click to expand...
yes, but the market is still sadly won and lost in Mp's .. whether we like it or not.

the 50D has larger microlenses, it also has larger photodiodes in relation to the pixel size. it also runs at a lower voltage, and other sensor design changes have been implemented.

granted those same technology leaps could have been put into the 40D sized sensor, but marketting still unfortunately is dictating that more is better, especially when faced with perhaps a 25Mp or so Sony FF sensor selling fairly cheaply, and I'm sure the next step up on nikon and sony prosumer bodies.
 
So from that logic, we should go back to 4mp cameras and buy smaller hard drives?

Of course its marketing & hype! Its a commercial business that that has to offer something compelling so that you buy it over their competitors.

I don't need 15mp, but it would allow me to print 20x30 w/o uprezing.
I do want better hi ISO performance and it offers me that.
I do want a better LCD for these tired old eyes.

I guess I will be getting that 2tb RAID box afterall!

I think his article did more to convince me than not.
Dan
--
'A bad idea in search of a good cause is..
just a bad idea' ... me
 
sure, not everyone does.

a few points though:

you can get more reach with more MP and the olympic shooters you mention have plenty of 400 2.8, 500 f/4, 600 f/4, etc. which if you notice cost lots more than the already very expensive 300 2.8 which is about as far up the line as the vast majority of non-pros ever go (and msot don't go that far).

lots of the photos are ulitimately meant for newpsapers, print or online, neither of which requires much res.

plenty of people could make use of lower noise, in fact, many of those shooting the D3 and MIII love the low noise (although then again as per comment above some don't need it if they can downsize enough, but FF at 12mp low nosie still handle to let you crop in well)!

just because it says it can do 12,800 doesn't mean it is realistic (although he takes it as if it is)

he also takes it as if it just adds new ISO, but forgets that somewhat lower ISO shoudl also have less noise, so even if he doesn't need to reach iso6400 maybe his iso1600 would be a stop cleaner??
livestrong said:
Why 15 megapixels?

After all, one of Canon’s top of the line bodies, The 1D Mark III,
has 10 megapixels and is being used at major events throughout the
world. The majority of the breathtaking images from Beijing were
taken with either the Mark III or the 12 megapixel Nikon D3. If
10-12 megapixels is good enough for some of the largest magazines and
newspapers in the country, then why do we need more? I’m a loyal
Canon user, but I have to say, this appears to be marketing hype.
Hey Nikon, “I have more megapixels than you”. Personally, I think
it’s overkill, and will actually cost users more money. Besides the
need for at least 4 GB memory cards, you will also need a bigger hard
drive, and more ram to work with these over sized files.

Read the rest of the article here:
http://blog-christography.blogspot.com/2008/09/is-canon-50d-worth-it.html
Click to expand...
--
http://skibum4.smugmug.com
(work in progress, a few galleries up, many more to come)
 
But more pixels does not necessarily mean less signal per unit area. The entire sensor will always receive the same amount of photos. The final prints of the same size will be the same whether it's from the 10MP sensor or 15MP sensor of the same format even though per pixel noise is not.

In the past there is a price you pay with higher MP because usually less packing density can be achieved when there are more pixels (more space between pixels). However with the gapless microlens that you can get close to 100% packing density this factor is entirely irrelevant. How many pixels you can squeeze in without losing any lights is limited only by the wafer fabrication technology.
tom trinko said:
I'd prefer 10Mpix if it would give me better high ISO. With a fixed
chip size the number of photons is fixed so more pixels means fewer
photons per pixel and hence a smaller signal to noise ratio for a
given exposure time fnumber etc. The lenslets somewhat compensate
for this but using lenslets with 10mpix would give better high ISO
than the 50D

having said that it looks like Canon has improved high ISO noise and
increased megapixles. i take a lot of nature shots at long range so
the extra 1.3 "digital" zoom that the 50D has over my 20D is not a
bad thing. For example this shot is a major crop and the extra 1.3,
square root of the factor of 2 greater pixels, would have helped

Click to expand...
 
I agreed with you.
The 50D is for somebody else.
But it becomes our problem.
Enjoy what you have.
I used Nikon camera more than 20+
I switched to Canon 10D since digital.
Now, I own few digital cameras.
Canon Pro1, 30D, Sony R1, Panasonic L1
Sigma SP14, DP1 and few more pocket one.
I really enjoy what I have…
When you see fewer problems, live is closing to there ….

pvuong
 
The 50D is definitely worth it - and will be even more so when its price drops closer to $1K.
But you are right - 15mp is too much already.

The more megapixels, the better. That’s what a lot of people think, without considering lens resolution.

Consumer zoom lenses are soft on a 8mp camera, let alone a 15mp one. Such high resolution sensor with soft lenses will give nothing more than empty magnification.
But hey, the more megapixels, the better, right?
 
rrcphoto said:
yes, but the market is still sadly won and lost in Mp's .. whether we
like it or not.
Click to expand...
I don't think the 50D's 15.1 MP has been dictated by the "market." When your ISO 3200 shots are essentially noise-free, why not have 15.1 MP? You get to have a great low-light camera, and you get to take wildlife shots that you can crop the [expletive deleted] out of in PP and still end up with a high IQ image. Why do people want to refuse success?
 
gml said:
Consumer zoom lenses are soft on a 8mp camera, let alone a 15mp one.
Such high resolution sensor with soft lenses will give nothing more
than empty magnification.
Click to expand...
Then get sharp lenses. EF-S 17-55, EF 70-200 f/4L IS, EF 200 f/2, EF 300 f/2.8, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top