Canon - is 10MP and 6.5fps enough for the 40D?

[dstudio2007]

New Sony sensor announced...
12MP, 10fps, CMOS

So, the Sony Alpha-10 and Nikon D300 models might knock the Canon 40D out of the water, no?

 

[Sideburns]

New Sony sensor announced...
12MP, 10fps, CMOS

So, the Sony Alpha-10 and Nikon D300 models might knock the Canon 40D out of the water, no?

Maybe...

But I suggest you change your sig. Seems like spam, and the link has nothing to do with what it says.

 

[Big Mike]

Yes but...the 40D can use Canon lenses

 

[Mohain]

One sensor does not a camera make!

 

[oCyrus55]

Yes but...the 40D can use Canon lenses

Word to that

 

[Jestev]

New Sony sensor announced...
12MP, 10fps, CMOS

So, the Sony Alpha-10 and Nikon D300 models might knock the Canon 40D out of the water, no?

The bodies may be better, but Canon L lenses are still great. In my opinion, the L's aren't necessarily better than the Nikkor variant, but others may disagree.

The important thing, in my mind, is that the new Nikon bodies show that Nikon can challenge (and even beat) Canon in the DSLR body market where Canon has recently been having great displays.

 

[Garbz]

And? so you get 1.5fps more. Why not anticipate the moment rather than sit there with a button on the trigger. Also 12mpx is around 8% larger. So what? The EOS1DsMkIII has a 22mpx sensor or something extreme like that doesn't it? I'd still prefer a Nikon D3 with it's 12mpx.

 

[THORHAMMER]

Its still a aps-c sensor same as the original alpha.

adding more megapixels to the same size sensor is like blowing up a picture in photoshop, you cant add resolution, its a law of the universe.

interpolation is a word for sony to learn well.

more megapixels doesnt mean anything, its sensor size, and the refinements
of the sensor, ie low noise or speed etc...

Im sure the camera is great and its fast and all that, but the image quality
shooting at iso 100 will be no different than the original alpha.

Id rather have the old alpha and some serious Zeiss glass then this bloated pig anyday.

 

[usayit]

Its still a aps-c sensor same as the original alpha.

Same as most of the Nikon line...
Same as most of the Canon line... excluding full frames and 1 series.

Why single out the alpha?

adding more megapixels to the same size sensor is like blowing up a picture in photoshop, you cant add resolution, its a law of the universe.

Not totally accurate. By your reasoning, the original 1.6 crop, 3 megapixel D30 has the same resolution as your 8+megapixel 20D which is just not true. What is a problem with packing more pixels into a smaller area is the signal to noise.... thats where I see the issue is.

But yeh.. at some point some high megapixel count A and some even higher megapixel count B won't matter much even on a 35mm full frame... but for now it does matter.

But it is important to note... this isn't an issue with just the Sony.. but all DSLRs.

(This is the number one reason why a digital Pentax 645 in a reasonable price would be a big hit.... if Pentax would just run with it)

more megapixels doesnt mean anything, its sensor size, and the refinements
of the sensor, ie low noise or speed etc...

Not true either. Megapixels and sensor size are indeed related.... As I said.. pixel density is the issue.

Im sure the camera is great and its fast and all that, but the image quality
shooting at iso 100 will be no different than the original alpha.

There are other factors that you are not accounting for... internal image processing... thickness of IR filter... and a boat load of design decisions.

 

[WDodd]

If I am not mistaken the size of the sensor and the amount of pixels will affect a few things such as noise.

Jam 10MP on a P&S sensor vs an APS-C sensor and what is going to happen?

All digital cameras work the same way. Light enters while the shutter is open and its collected by the sensor. If a P&S sensor has 10 million pixels and a APS-C has 10 million pixels and a full frame sensor has 10 million pixels then obviously the pixels themselves are going to be largest in the full-frame sensor.

This would of course mean that the larger sensor can collect more light per pixel than the smaller one. Better color, less noise, etc. is the result.

 

[THORHAMMER]

Same as most of the Nikon line...
Same as most of the Canon line... excluding full frames and 1 series.

Why single out the alpha?

But yeh.. at some point some high megapixel count A and some even higher megapixel count B won't matter much even on a 35mm full frame... but for now it does matter.

But it is important to note... this isn't an issue with just the Sony.. but all DSLRs.

(This is the number one reason why a digital Pentax 645 in a reasonable price would be a big hit.... if Pentax would just run with it)

Not true either. Megapixels and sensor size are indeed related.... As I said.. pixel density is the issue.

There are other factors that you are not accounting for... internal image processing... thickness of IR filter... and a boat load of design decisions.

-----------------------------------------------
Im not singling out the alpha persay, but The original post was presuming that the alpha was going to "blow the 40D out of the water" since they straped more MP onto the same sensor.

I see what your saying, and I should clarify, what I meant was taking into consideration the efficiency has been allready peaked ever since the 6.3 MP sensors. I m taking that for granted allready. So from that point when they
throw more MP onto the same sensor I think its just silly to say this is the hottest thing, its just the next release thats all..
Ill get excited when they come out with a 1.3x or a FF...

I don't really think the same way about canon cause they are marketing to
pros and hobbyists and everyone in between, when canon does this its just
the next years build of the same thing with some minor improvements, but when sony does it its suddenly the best thing since sliced bread ? lol

thats all I meant... no trying to single them out, I actually really like the
first gen minolta 7D , even more than the alpha.

can anyone show me an example of the same size sensor but more MP actually making a "better" picture ? Ill bet you cant even tell the difference.