What is with people and huge MPs?
i would prefer to have a lower MP camera that shoots great low light and is crystal clear when at these said low iso settings instead of a high MP camera that has lousy iso.
Mind you this is probably because I'm one of them photographers that hates using a flash.
For everyone that says you need fewer megapixels to get better IQ, riddle me this...
Why does the Nikon D3X (a full frame sensor), have more megapixels than the 5D Mark 2 *AND* do better at low light photography? Would everyone be willing to say "no, the 5DMark2's sensor with only 21MP is perfect, we don't need the 3 extra megapixels and the improved IQ of the D3X"? (If that were possible.)
Or that the 16MP IDs2 sensor should never have been replaced by the 21MP sensor in the 1Ds3?
The solution to the IQ problem is not simply "fewer MP = higher IQ" and quite clearly there are still gains to be had. Remember that when the folks at DxO labs crunched the numbers, the sensor in the S95 was performing better (for its characteristics) than the D3X, yet it is far smaller.
I mean seriously, some of the excuses for avoiding high megapixel counts on Canon cameras sound about as well thought out as those of Nikon users defending Nikon only having crop'd sensors before Nikon's first FF camera.
I would say that instead of comparing the MP count of the 2 cameras why not look at the algorithm that they both use. Obviously the low light one that the Nikon used was better than the one that Canon used.
If that wasn't the case then how can a camera such as the 1D-X (from test shots seen on net) beat the 5D2 if that camera only has 18MP compared to the 21 of the 5D2?
A sensor is just a capture source. once the photons hit the sensor its up the processors onboard to do the calculation and convert the information gathered into something of worth. If you had a good enough algorithm you could technically take a 10MP camera and have that process pictures at 12500 ISO crystal clear.
...well other than the pixel density problem, the micro lens issues and costs.
A simple reason to justify why people release super high MP cameras is MONEY!
Bigger is ALWAYS better, or so we are raised to believe.
You buy a 68CM CRT TV
I have to then buy a 32" LCD TV
So in return you go out and buy the 56" Plasma TV
Not to be out done i buy a projector.
You buy the 720P version
I then retaliate by buying the 1080p version... and so on.
At some point you have to look at what you are doing ad realise that in the size of your lounge room the 32" LCD TV was more than perfect size wise, so you eventually down size but buy the 3D,1080p, 200hz model (or whatever the best you can buy nowadays).
The same thing is happening with cameras finally.
At what point do the manufacturers realise that they don't need to hit massive MP figures if they are able to cover the industry standard image size, but at much better low light and super fast frames per second (remember once the FPS passes 24 your basically shooting video anyhow), and in an easier to produce (read cheaper) format without alienating the old pros that still haven't quite gotten over the fact that film is dead and for years have been investing in expensive equipment only to have Canon/Nikon etc make it available to mere amateurs.
It doesn't cost much to call yourself a photographer nowadays. The proof is in the work you produce.