DSLR Technology Improvements

[JusticeMoose]

Hello everybody, I have a few big questions to ask about DSLR's, so get ready hehe. So, my first and only DSLR is a Canon Rebel XTi which came out in 2006 (5-6 years ago) and I have been researching and looking at the new Canon Rebels. The Canon Rebel T3i is the one I have my eyes one the most, it has an 18 megapixel sensor, full HD video capabilities, etc. My XTi does not have any video shooting capabilities and has a 10.5 megapixel sensor. My first question is, does the upgrade from 10.5 MP to 18 MP make a big difference in quality? Can anyone make comparisons on this? Is it just the size of the image? But one reason I would really love to upgrade is probably the ISO speeds and the enhanced metering system. My ISO speeds range from 100-1600, and the T3i goes from 100-6400. I often have trouble capturing enough light in darker areas. Of course, the features and interface of are nicer.

My big question I get from this is, what are the major improvements made in SLR technology over the past 5 years? Does the race for higher MP make the image actually clearer? What are the big improvements made between these two? What makes it worth upgrading? Is everyone waiting for something specific in the near future in SLR technology? It seems like there is less to improve now that digital cameras have become so incredibly advanced. Do you think it would be smart to upgrade? And what about lens-wise? The T3i has the same lens size as my XTi, what are the improvements in the lens? Would it be smart to buy the body alone of the T3i? My Canon Rebel XTi is still a magnificent camera, I love it and use it all the time.

Thanks!

[TPF Sponsor]

[JustinFore]

On any of the new Canon APS-C cameras, (7D through whatever Rebel) I still like to keep the ISO below 400 for the sake of noise. I'm sure I could push higher if I were converting to b&w...but I honestly haven't tried.

If low light is your thing, you should definitely be thinking about a fast prime. I have a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 that has me completely spoiled.

IMO, the biggest thing the extra MP gives is crop flexibility. (which is pretty important if you're using a prime anyways...lol, so it sort of works out)

I think the biggest thing you will gain with a late model Rebel is the ability to shoot video. There is a learning curve, and it certainly isn't for everybody and every situation, but after learning to shoot video in manual mode with a HDSLR (and a fast lens) I don't see myself picking up a video camera anytime soon. (there are some exceptions)

[ConradM]

If you want to talk about technology you should read up on Sony's SLT cameras.

Translucent Mirror DSLR Cameras | Alpha DSLR | Sony Store USAaster fps, flip out screens, HDR functions etc...

[KmH]

DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

DxOMark - Canon EOS 600D in depth review

My first question is, does the upgrade from 10.5 MP to 18 MP make a big difference in quality?

No. You would be hard pressed to see any difference if both made the same photo, with the same lens, at their lowest base ISO value.

Can anyone make comparisons on this? Is it just the size of the image?

The image sensor is the same size, but to pack nearly twice as many pixels onto the same size image sensor they have to make the pixels a lot smaller. Smaller pixels cannot gather as much light, which is not good for the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). However, other improvements: to the image sensor amplifier circuits, the analog-todigital converter, and to the DIGIC image processor yield a net gain in ISO performance.

My ISO speeds range from 100-1600, and the T3i goes from 100-6400.

That the adjustment goes to ISO 6400 does not mean ISO 6400 is usable.

what are the major improvements made in SLR technology over the past 5 years?

Improvement in ISO capability, but while it has improved it hasn't improved in a major way in the Canon entry-level, crop sensor cameras.

Does the race for higher MP make the image actually clearer?

No, because image sensors still have to have an anti-aliasing filter in front of them.

If you read up on Sony's SLT technology, be sure and note the technology's limitations. Every camera systems has it's pluses and minuses.

[ConradM]

[QUOTE=KmH;2411603]DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

DxOMark - Canon EOS 600D in depth review

My first question is, does the upgrade from 10.5 MP to 18 MP make a big difference in quality?

No. You would be hard pressed to see any difference if both made the same photo, with the same lens, at their lowest base ISO value.

Can anyone make comparisons on this? Is it just the size of the image?

The image sensor is the same size, but to pack nearly twice as many pixels onto the same size image sensor they have to make the pixels a lot smaller. Smaller pixels cannot gather as much light, which is not good for the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). However, other improvements: to the image sensor amplifier circuits, the analog-todigital converter, and to the DIGIC image processor yield a net gain in ISO performance.

That the adjustment goes to ISO 6400 does not mean ISO 6400 is usable.

what are the major improvements made in SLR technology over the past 5 years?

Improvement in ISO capability, but while it has improved it hasn't improved in a major way in the Canon entry-level, crop sensor cameras.

Does the race for higher MP make the image actually clearer?

No, because image sensors still have to have an anti-aliasing filter in front of them.

If you read up on Sony's SLT technology, be sure and note the technology's limitations. Every camera systems has it's pluses and minuses.[/QUOTE]

What limitations in specific? Just curious...

[JusticeMoose]

"The image sensor is the same size, but to pack nearly twice as many pixels onto the same size image sensor they have to make the pixels a lot smaller. Smaller pixels cannot gather as much light, which is not good for the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)."

So this means that upgrading to more megapixels isnt necessarily a good thing? The nicest cameras seem to have their MP's in the high 20's, but is that not good? Is there a preferred amount that can gather a good amount of light but have a good amount of MP's?


AND also, do you think that these improvements would be worth it to upgrade?

[O|||||||O]

The nicest cameras seem to have their MP's in the high 20's, but is that not good?

They also have larger (full frame) sensors.

[djacobox372]

So this means that upgrading to more megapixels isnt necessarily a good thing? The nicest cameras seem to have their MP's in the high 20's, but is that not good? Is there a preferred amount that can gather a good amount of light but have a good amount of MP's?

The nikon d3s is one of the best dslrs $ can buy, its only 12mp; however, nothing compares to its high iso performance.

[KmH]

What limitations in specific? Just curious...

EVF for one. The tonal range, clarity, brightness, resolution, and update lag/refresh rates of EVFs have generally made them poor substitutes for tried and true optical viewfinders. EVF's have gotten somewhat better but still lag a fair way behind what an optical viewfinder offers.

Sony Alpha SLT-A33 Camera - Full Review

One quirk of the design of the Sony A33 (and shared by the A55) unfortunately conspires to make this high-speed burst shooting somewhat harder to use than would otherwise be the case. For both the ultra-speedy Continuous Priority AE mode, and the six frames per second Continuous Advance Hi mode, the live view isn't shown on the viewfinder or LCD panel. Instead, the A33 shows the previously captured image. This makes it harder to follow fast-moving action, since rather than seeing what's you're trying to frame, you're effectively seeing a static slideshow of what happened around a tenth of a second earlier. This problem, incidentally, is also found on all of the SLD's we've reviewed.

Not a part of the SLT design, but a feature of Sony ands some other cameras is in-the-camera image stabilization (IS), which also has limitations, both in the amount of adjustment it can do, and if it stops working, there is none. In-the-lens IS can adjust for larger movements, and a different IS capable lens can be mounted if the one mounted quits working, though if you have a spare Sony camera body handy you're hunky-dory.

Lens based stabilization has additional advantages over in-the-camera-body stabilization.

In low-light or low-contrast situations, the autofocus system (which has no stabilized sensors) is able to work more accurately when the image coming from the lens is already stabilized by an in-the-lens IS.

Plus, in cameras with optical viewfinders, the image seen by the photographer through the stabilized lens (as opposed to in-body stabilization) reveals more detail because of its stability, and it also makes correct framing easier. This is especially the case with longer telephoto lenses.

[KmH]

"The image sensor is the same size, but to pack nearly twice as many pixels onto the same size image sensor they have to make the pixels a lot smaller. Smaller pixels cannot gather as much light, which is not good for the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)."

So this means that upgrading to more megapixels isnt necessarily a good thing? The nicest cameras seem to have their MP's in the high 20's, but is that not good? Is there a preferred amount that can gather a good amount of light but have a good amount of MP's?


AND also, do you think that these improvements would be worth it to upgrade?

Canon is notorious about pushing MP as a marketing tool, because most people assume a bigger number is always better, even though it may not be.

The vast majority of DSLR camera buyers have no clue what most of a DSLR's specifications mean, let alone how they relate to camera performance and image quality.

Put another way, most people don't have enough technical savvy to sort through all the marketing hype.

It is said that Nikon cameras are designed by and for photographers, while Canon cameras are designed by and for Canon's marketing department.

[JusticeMoose]

Alright, well I have definitely learned more about megapixels from this and my view of it has been changed haha. So, how can I improve my image quality if it's not necessarily the amount of megapixels? I as low as ISOs I can, but I can tell the image quality cameras can take has definitely improved over the years. Should I be looking at a better lens rather than a newer camera? I still have the stock 18-55mm that came with it and the zoom lens the package included.

[Rephargotohp]

Lens trumps Camera..always...well almost always..but always

[KmH]

So, how can I improve my image quality if it's not necessarily the amount of megapixels? .

The quickest, least expensive way to improve image quality is to upgrade the photographers knowledge and skill.

[Derrel]

Lens trumps Camera..always...well almost always..but always

Wrong. Neither the lens nor the camera is "More important" than the other. BOTH are needed. Neither one is "more" important, and can "trump" the other...

As to the Canon cameras compared here....DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

WOW-that is absolutely PATHETIC sensor performance these days on the new Canon T3 and 60D models--virtually NO improvement to speak of in almost half a decade...the High-ISO figures are pathetic. Absolutely lagging. And the dynamic range figures...again...very poor for 2011. Nikon and Pentax have crop-body cameras (which use Sony-made sensors) that offer substantially better High-ISO/low-light performance numbers, as well as significantly wider dynamic range capabilities. It's no wonder people say Canon has stopped innovating, and is now doing more marketing than improving.

[JusticeMoose]

okay...... Well, if they are both important then which do you think would be smarter to upgrade? The lens or the camera? The problem is that buying a good lens is about as much as getting a new camera is. Do you think it would be smarter to just buy the body and stick with the 18-55mm lens that came with my Canon XTi? My camera is 5-6 years old now, do you think I should upgrade it or the lens?