You are not the only one who can use sarcasm, Zac, so when I stick my tounge out and say I’m right, which I am of course, and you’re not, it’s a jest.

Where I think you are wrong is your assumptions are based, as you said, on current technology, which as we all know when it comes to chip design is old tech by the time we are talking about it here. You assume things as they appear in a current production model and do not factor in the rapid development and improvements being made for the next round.

Another place you are wrong is your continued assumption that I think only resolution will increase and not other aspects of design such as noise and dynamic range also getting better. You seem to have it stuck in your head lower MP means better picture quality, which if one assumes as you seem to do that chip design will not improve, you might be correct, but I see no evidence that is going to happen – so I disagree with your assumptions and conclusions.

The big difference in our thinking is I do not hold to old film-school thinking about what a DSLR camera “should” be or can be. I remember very clearly hearing all prophesies when the 1D came out that digital WOULD NEVER match film quality. I heard all the prophesies that they would never add video to DSLR’s, especially not a Pro DSLR. What people, and you specifically Zac, fail to realize is competitive market forces drive advancements, and because competition is not going to end, ever, neither will development of better pictures including higher MP in all cameras, and I am absolutely certain that in 10 years we will all consider what is today “state of the art” to be a total joke.

I’m also not saying all cameras “should” increase resolution, personally I don’t care if a Rebel was still 3MP or 15MP it’s not a camera I will ever buy just because of the name, I’m saying they all WILL as a result of advancement in design and competitive market driving forces. As for some models having lower MP to increase fps to appeal to a different market segment, sure, but they will also rise in MP like all the other cameras will.

As for lecturing, whatever…I write as I want to write, as do you I might add without my telling you how to write, and just as I do not accept your limited thinking about what a DSLR camera should be, I do not accept your opinion I can not explain my thinking, give examples, or talk about cameras or photography as I see it.

:)~~~

Personally, asa 6 film in a 6×7 will continue to own for quite some time, but it’s not practical to use at all.

The big difference, I think, between us, is that you want very high resolutions for all cameras, where I would prefer that the 5D and Ds type cameras keep chasing resolution, while the others XXD and 1D slowly increase resolution, while concentrating on other areeaa, like noise and dynamic range, or exposure latitude :),

About the 1d sensor versus the Ds sensor, they’re not directly comparable because they are designed for differennt purposes, the Ds is a maximum resolution possible, the resolution in the 1D is limited for additional speed, they could have put more pixels in the original 1D. But they chose not to.so comparing those to show the progress is just not a great example.

Oh, and David, chill a little bit, I’m not personally attacking you or what you want, so if you could turn down the I’m right you’re not, particularly considering that I have trouble communicating my points to you, it would be appreciated.

:)~

Also, you missed my point entirely about quoting the 1D, which was not to compare the 1D and 1Ds line, but only to show the FACT that chip design and resolution have evolved and will continue to do so despite your opinion the world should accept your decision DLSR’s have reached their top resolution.