Will Canon Withdraw from the Megapixel War?

[awinphoto]

V8beast, I would like to thank nuero for pointing out your online portfolio should you wish to call it a portfolio or not. You have talent and skill at what you do, however I did not see any 1d series camera photos anywhere in your photos... from what I saw, you had photos taken with a 5d classic, 20D, and powershot. (most of your "work"/shop style photos seemed to be with the powershot with the most recent few with the 5d, did you recently acquire the 5d? Point is I'm glad you're making due with what cameras you have to work with (all 12MP or less). Have you had the opportunity to play with the new 5D or the 1d series? Yes, we all look with admiration to the top of the line photos, but seriously, unless you work with them on an ongoing bases and have a solid comparison between the two, we can make any argument you wish however we are talking hypothetical rather than practical use. We all wish you the best with your photography, however it is more constructive to bounce ideas off each other to make each other better photographers and utilize our gear better than pick fights over gear, especially when you're not as experienced with that gear yourself ...

 

[WarStreet]

I couldn't care less whether FF cameras can have more MP and at the same time superior noise control and DR. It's just that I don't want more MP.

It's the same problem I am facing. BMW are continually improving their performance while decreasing fuel consumption. I hate this efficiency war ! ???

And that's supposed to be an analogy how ?

I will try to explain it the best way I can although English is not my native language.

"I couldn't care less whether FF cameras can have more MP and at the same time superior noise control and DR. It's just that I don't want more MP."

translates to I don't care of technology improvements, I don't want A (MP count) to improve even although B (noise, DR, etc..) will improve too

"It's the same problem I am facing. BMW are continually improving their performance while decreasing fuel consumption. I hate this efficiency war"

translates to I don't care of technology improvements, I don't want A (car performance) to improve even although B (fuel consumption) will improve too

What also they have in common is that both statements gives nothing to the thread, and my intention is to make the point. The original poster (unfocused) asked an interesting and valid technical question which could have been very instructive if the thread didn't degraded. Some posters such as neuro, torger, dr croubie and others, tried to contribute and it's irrelevant if what they said is correct or not as long as a constructive open minded discussion was in place. But then we ended up with who is the best photographer garbage and just scares away anyone willing to contribute on the original question.

Because (a) extra pixels have extra cost, and (b) some people don't need extra pixels. Nikon seems to understad that.

(a) Actually the opposite happens in technology. Processors, memory, displays, mobiles, printers they always get any aspect of their specs better, pushing prices down while technology gets more efficient and market demand increases.

(b) some users don't need better ISO, others don't need better DR or FPS. If Canon won't improve whatever someone don't need we will end up without any camera replacement.

 

[V8Beast]

V8beast, I would like to thank nuero for pointing out your online portfolio should you wish to call it a portfolio or not.

I would be beyond embarrassed if that online collection snapshots nuero posted was really my portfolio. Since you asked so nicely, here you go.

In going through this thread again, I can see how my responses came off as elitist. Sorry if I gave you that impression, but I was just trying to point out that there is a time and place for high-dollar gear. Yes, there are lots of morons who think great equipment equals great images, but there are situations where the pricey body is the best tool for the job. I actually think we're probably more in agreement than disagreement. The stuff in my portfolio is a mix of images taken with a 20D (with non-L glass and ghetto-ass Vivitar flashes) and a 5D (with a bunch of L glass and Canon flashes).

To the casual observer, it's probably impossible to distinguish between what was taken with a 20D and 5D, which proves your point that you can get great results with lesser equipment. However, as the person who had to suffer through the frustration in the field and long hours in post processing to get a 20D to come close to the performance of a 5D, I can honestly say that I didn't make the upgrade soon enough. As for getting similar results with a 20D as you can with a 5D, you can call it "technique" if you want, but after a while, limping around with equipment that doesn't adequately suit your needs is a waste of time. And if you need to make money off your images, time is money. I'd rather be taking on more assignments in a month than A) spending longer than necessary on a shoot because my equipment isn't up to par, and B) wasting time in PP because my equipment isn't up to par. As a working photog, surely you can understand that?

Something a lot of people miss is that you don't always spend money on nicer gear because it will equate to nicer images. As we all know, you can get great images with cheap gear. A more compelling reason to bite the bullet at lay down big bucks for an expensive body is because it makes capturing the shot you're after easier. And since you're almost always under a time crunch, a tool that lets you work more quickly and efficiently increases the probably of capturing the shot you're after.

 

[V8Beast]

Have you had the opportunity to play with the new 5D or the 1d series?

I never upgraded to the 5DII because I didn't feel it was enough of an upgrade over the 5D. I found a great deal on a used 1DsMKIII, and while the image quality is just incrementally better, the AF system and faster frame rate absolutely crushes the 5D. So does the 1Ds enable me to capture a higher caliber of image over the 5D? Not necessarily, but it sure makes things a hell of a lot easier and saves a ton in the field and in PP.

 

[awinphoto]

Have you had the opportunity to play with the new 5D or the 1d series?

I never upgraded to the 5DII because I didn't feel it was enough of an upgrade over the 5D. I found a great deal on a used 1DsMKIII, and while the image quality is just incrementally better, the AF system and faster frame rate absolutely crushes the 5D. So does the 1Ds enable me to capture a higher caliber of image over the 5D? Not necessarily, but it sure makes things a hell of a lot easier and saves a ton in the field and in PP.

I never upgraded to the 5D II for a totally different set of situations, got the 50D to tide me over, the 7D came out, my father-in-law loved the 50D and I hated the 50D so I gladly let him buy it off me to get the 7D... Now i'm awaiting the next batch of cameras to see where I go from here in my evolution of digital photography. I do agree using more "feature rich" cameras such as 1Ds makes life easy, however when people come off as "if you dont have x camera your stupid, a lesser photographer, and will never take as good of pictures"... That's when my feathers get ruffled and I got pipe in. I'm glad we are able to reach some common ground. While yes, I would love to be able to move to a 1Ds series camera, i would rather upgrade glass and incrementally upgrade bodys until I either land a steller account in which I can start splurging willy nilly on 1D cameras or get "that" photo that rakes me my millions... Until then I'm doing what I can to pay my underwater mortgage, bills, and feed my kids. =)

 

[unfocused]

Wow! I'm kind of surprised that this thread generated the interest that it did.

I figured I'd pose a question and see where it would lead. Some of the comments I found very interesting. One of the most interesting to me was from YoukY63:

I also one of the guys that say "never enough". The printing argument is irrelevant: I never print any photo. Instead, I watch them on my computer. And as I am doing landscape (day or night), sometime I enjoy to look at a very small detail of my picture. The more details I can get the happier I am.

That's an approach that I quite honestly never considered. Sure, I know most photographs these days never get printed either as a photographic print or "in print" but I never really thought about enjoying images in that way. Not sure what to think about it, but it is interesting.

Anyway, as far as the original post goes, I thought I might now, after reading so many good comments (and quite a few bad ones as well) put my opinion out there for everyone to pick apart.

I do think megapixel count will continue to increase. But, I think it will become less and less important to customers and the increases will become more incremental than revolutionary. Why do I say that? Not because of any slowdown in technology, but because I think there is a diminishing return on the benefits of higher pixel counts.

Going from 10 mp to 18 mp was a massive jump in resolution. I personally went from being fairly limited in the size of an image I could produce and in the amount of cropping that I could accept, to being able to print a full frame image bigger than I personally would ever want. In addition, I found I could crop an image when needed and even crop quite a bit when I was at the limit of my lens' reach and still have acceptable quality.

But, at the same time, I realize that I am routinely "throwing away" pixels because I don't need the image to be as large as the native size provided by an 18 mp sensor. Do I care, not really? Pixels are free, or at least so cheap as to be effectively free. But, am I willing to pay a premium to get even more pixels that I will be throwing away? Well, if they don't cost too much, I'd consider it because there will always be those times when I'd like to crop an image to compensate for not having a long-enough lens. Or, there may be a time when I want a poster-size print.

But, as I said, I'm only willing to "buy" more pixels if they are cheap, because I've got enough for most of my needs right now.

One the other hand, there may be hidden costs to more pixels that concern me. Will increased resolution reduce Canon's ability to offer higher ISO speeds, less noise and more dynamic range? Only the Canon engineers know for sure, but if that's the case, I'd rather have the latter, because, as I said, I've pretty much got as many pixels as I want right now. And, if those higher pixels mean I have to buy new lenses that cost even more, that's a major disincentive.

Now, while we'd all like to think we are "special," I suspect I'm actually a pretty typical consumer in the "prosumer" category. So, I imagine that Canon is surveying customers like me and deciding what they need to do to make the next generation of 7D a "must buy" camera.

I believe their market research will show that a higher megapixel count would have only a minor impact on moving 7D (or 60D or T3i) customers to a 7DII. And, even though I'd like to see only an incremental improvement in the 7DII (so I can skip a generation and wait for the 7DIII) Canon wants me to buy the 7DII, because they'd rather sell me a new camera every three years, instead of every six.

So, my guess is that while they won't concede the megapixel count to Nikon/Sony, I'm not sure they'll feel compelled to pull out all the stops to offer higher resolution and make that the main selling point for the next generation of APS-C bodies.

They are the industry leader in resolution, they know better than anyone what the downsides to high megapixel counts might be. So, my opinion is that Canon will serve up a decent increase in resolution in the next generation of APS-C sensors, but with the 7D II, I think they will pack some other features into the camera that their market research shows will motivate current 7D owners to buy a new model.

We could all make our list of what those features might be, but frankly...that would be an entirely different thread.

So, what do others think?

 

[V8Beast]

I'm glad we are able to reach some common ground. While yes, I would love to be able to move to a 1Ds series camera, i would rather upgrade glass and incrementally upgrade bodys until I either land a steller account in which I can start splurging willy nilly on 1D cameras or get "that" photo that rakes me my millions...

I feel like a douche for even posting my portfolio. However, when neuro posted a link to my freakin' photobucket site, which is filled with snapshots of junk in my garage I uploaded online in order to sell on craigslist, I had to respond with a link to my real portfolio.

At any rate, I think you have a good plan. Bodies go out of date so quickly, if what you've got is working for you, there's no sense in spending big bucks on something that will depreciate at an alarming rate. The only point I was trying to make is that it is actually possible to reach the limits of a body. Two instances come to mind from when I was shooting with a 5D. I was doing a shoot one day in downtown Dallas, shooting out the back of my SUV while the car/subject followed behind me. To get a decent amount of motion blur in the wheels of the car you're shooting, you have to use as long of a shutter speed as you can hand-hold. Throw in a bumpy concrete bridge and a rough-riding SUV, and only half the images will come out sharp enough for print. In this scenario, the more frames you can fire off in succession, the greater the number of sharp images you will have. The 5D's 3 FPS is quite inadequate in this regard.

Furthermore, the 5D's AF points are positioned near the center of the frame, so if your subject is composed somewhere outside that area, the AF will never lock on. I was able to limp by in manual focus, but that meant making several passes along this same bridge, which I chose because it had a nice view of the downtown skyline in the background, and how it was positioned in relation to the setting sun. While all this is going on, I had a couple of assistants about a quarter mile down the driving very slowly on purpose to block traffic. As you can imagine, you can only do this so many times before the cops show up. Given the short window of opportunity you have to grab a shot like this, a fast and accurate AF system, in addition to a fast FPS rate, is the difference between getting the image in one pass over the bridge instead of making 3-4 trips and risking the wrath of the law. Piss off a cop badly enough, and he can ban you from shooting anywhere in the city just to be a prick. Don't ask me how I know. That means you can't use any of the locations you scouted ahead of time, you don't get the your shots when the light is the best, you miss your deadline, and your editor isn't too happy. So yes, it's possible to get by with lesser equipment, but to me the risk isn't worth it. I'd rather pay more for a tool that's better suited for the task at hand and not worry about this sort of thing. Shooting for fun and shooting under a deadline are two very different things.

The day before that, I was shooting on a very dusty runway, again out the back of my SUV. The dust created a very cool rooster tail effect trailing behind the car I was shooting as we drove down the runway. Unfortunately, it was so damn dusty that my sensor, which I had just cleaned, got covered with several annoying dust spots. Consequently, in every shot I took after that one, I had to waste time in PP removing them. After removing dust specs in 100-plus photos before submitting them to my clients, it got very, very old. So yes, a weather sealed body would have been nice! Time I waste in PP is time I could be spending on another shoot. I can see how weather sealing is a frivolous luxury for some, but for others it's a necessity they're willing to pay for.

 

[Flake]

One of the early computers I had with a HDD (yes before that they used huge floppy drives) had a massive 4.3GB, they quickly grew until 40GB was about the largest available, then 120GB, 500GB, etc and now we're looking at 3TB.

I still have CF cards of 256MB, I think they hold just one or two shots off the 5D MkII, and now of course we're up to 64GB (at a price).

The point here is that every other area of electronics has grown, and it doesn't really matter what we want, we can only buy what we're offered, no doubt at sometime in the future we'll be lusting over cameras with 1 Giga Pixel - and that won't be the end!

 

[awinphoto]

V8beast, don't feel like a douche. Sharing portfolios and critiques help everyone get better. My website is attached to my profile. It's a work in progress trying to make it html5 compliant however I need to replace my flash portfolios... Yuck. Architecture, commercial and retouching are my strong suits. I keep a minimal portrait portfolio should a client ever ask if I can do portraits as well. But that isn't my strong point.

Regarding your specific situation you mentioned, I don't suppose using your old 20d with 5fps or trying to use a 40d or 7d if you can't use the 1ds. 40d with 6 and 7d with 8fps could catch it. I undserstand the frustrations of 3fps at times. Regarding the bouncy car, reminds me of an article I read in the latest CPN network magazine produced by canon. They interviewed a photo who shoots in antartica and shoots from a helicopter. They asked how he gets sharp shots given the vibration of the copter. He said the only to combat such strong movement was shutter speed.

Regarding the dust, what lenses were you using? Some have that gasket for the lens mount. I know on the 1ds and newer cameras like the 7d and 5d2 and maybe the 60d has that dust mapping in camera technology but don't think that's in the 5d classic. Dpp may have that to help you out. Don't think that shipped with the 5d classic but you should have that in the dpp from the 1ds.

 

[awinphoto]

V8, I was thinking more about your issues and I remember one time about 7-8 years ago I attended a short class taught but a guy called Harry Liles... (or something like that)... anyways he was a photographer who shot for companies such as lexus and porsche for their yearly display catalogs...You may know about these tricks allready but for those who dont, he said that on moving shots, they are going very slow... at times less than 5 MPH... that allows for smooth stable ride in the 2nd car and allows for shots up to 5 seconds or longer to allow for the wheel blur. He also said to always shoot dusk or dawn (magic hours)... There's enough light in the sky to build up exposure on long exposures and not enough light where you can afford longer exposures even with low Fstope 2.8-5.6. He also mentioned that on time sensitive shots they get a car rig that attached to the car to be photographed and extends the camera to the angle you want it to be... Focus the camera, then use a remote from another car to fire the shutter when you want to... Remove the rig in post production. I dont know how practical those are to when you want a specific road/bridge and you got traffic and your metro area... but for giggles, there they are... Also for driving scenes, most companies want the driver burned out/darked out or hidden... the idea is they want the viewer to feel like they are/can be driving the car and when they see someone else in the car, it causes a disconnect thinking its "someone elses" car instead of "it can be my car"... I wasn't his favorite student because others had high budgets and would rent cars for each shoot to have new and exciting cars... I didn't have that in my budget so I had to shoot my car or my friends car for shoots... not as exciting, haha.

 

[V8Beast]

Regarding your specific situation you mentioned, I don't suppose using your old 20d with 5fps or trying to use a 40d or 7d if you can't use the 1ds. 40d with 6 and 7d with 8fps could catch it. I undserstand the frustrations of 3fps at times.

I had to go to a 7D as a backup one a shoot not that long ago. The rugged build quality, speed and accuracy of the AF system, and its 8 FPS, blew me away. I know lots of people are satisfied with its image quality, but it just wasn't my cup of tea. Unfortunately, the types of shots where I need its speed the most are the shots where I can't afford to sacrifice image quality. Otherwise, I wouldn't have to spend so much money on the 1Ds, which has a good AF system but isn't exactly fast, either.

Regarding the bouncy car, reminds me of an article I read in the latest CPN network magazine produced by canon. They interviewed a photo who shoots in antartica and shoots from a helicopter. They asked how he gets sharp shots given the vibration of the copter. He said the only to combat such strong movement was shutter speed.

It's always a tradeoff. If you use too quick of a shutter speed, even if you're going 100 mph, a car will look like it's parked. The challenge is always trying to keep the shutter open as long as you can, much longer than you normally would with a static subject, to try to convey the sensation of speed and motion in the wheels and background.

Regarding the dust, what lenses were you using? Some have that gasket for the lens mount. I know on the 1ds and newer cameras like the 7d and 5d2 and maybe the 60d has that dust mapping in camera technology but don't think that's in the 5d classic. Dpp may have that to help you out. Don't think that shipped with the 5d classic but you should have that in the dpp from the 1ds.

In the kinds of shots I'm speaking of, the 24-105 is the lens of choice. By simply turning on the IS system, 5-6 images of out 10 are acceptably sharp instead of 1-2 out of 10.

 

[V8Beast]

he said that on moving shots, they are going very slow... at times less than 5 MPH... that allows for smooth stable ride in the 2nd car and allows for shots up to 5 seconds or longer to allow for the wheel blur.

Slower is often better for a number of reasons. You get a more stable ride, but you can also fire off more frames before running out of real estate. However, the speed at which you can go often has nothing to do with photography technique, and everything to do with your surroundings. Imagine if you were driving somewhere, and some clowns in front of you were taking up two lanes, blocking traffic, crawling at 15 mph. You probably wouldn't be too happy. Also, if you're shooting without a permit, you have to get the hell in and get the hell out as fast as you can.

He also said to always shoot dusk or dawn (magic hours)... There's enough light in the sky to build up exposure on long exposures and not enough light where you can afford longer exposures even with low Fstope 2.8-5.6.

Cars are such reflective, contrasty objects that there's really no other way to shoot a car, using natural light at least, other than at dusk or dawn. That's why, in my opinion, dynamic range is so important. Even in soft light, the difference in contrast between the highlights and shadows of a car are extremely dramatic. Darker colored cars make matters even worse.

He also mentioned that on time sensitive shots they get a car rig that attached to the car to be photographed and extends the camera to the angle you want it to be... Focus the camera, then use a remote from another car to fire the shutter when you want to... Remove the rig in post production. I dont know how practical those are to when you want a specific road/bridge and you got traffic and your metro area... but for giggles, there they are

A lot of the images in my portfolio are rig shots. They're pretty easily distinguishable from car-to-car shots because the rig shots have way more wide-angle distortion, and much more motion blur. Shutter speeds are anywhere from 2-20 seconds, the car is usually crawling down the road at 1-2 mph. Since the boom extends from the subject car into the next lane, it's only practical to rig up a car in a secluded area. Personally, I don't like the overly distorted look, but a lot of people do. The only way around that is to use a the same kind of rigs that movie studios use so you can get the camera farther away from the car and use a longer focal length, but those things cost $3K daily to rent, only making them practical for ultra high-end commercial photogs.

Also for driving scenes, most companies want the driver burned out/darked out or hidden... the idea is they want the viewer to feel like they are/can be driving the car and when they see someone else in the car, it causes a disconnect thinking its "someone elses" car instead of "it can be my car"... I wasn't his favorite student because others had high budgets and would rent cars for each shoot to have new and exciting cars... I didn't have that in my budget so I had to shoot my car or my friends car for shoots... not as exciting, haha.

Fortunately, you can't even see driver most of the time, but if they're too distracting then they're easy enough to remove in PP.

 

[WarStreet]

I do think megapixel count will continue to increase. But, I think it will become less and less important to customers and the increases will become more incremental than revolutionary. Why do I say that? Not because of any slowdown in technology, but because I think there is a diminishing return on the benefits of higher pixel counts.

ok, here is my feedback.

I agree with the diminishing return, but I think it's effective for every spec not just for MP. For example, with a DR of 12 stops how many users % would like to have an improved DR ? Once in the future we have a DR of 16 stops, how many users % would care for an improved DR ? Not enough for you ? let's make it 20 stops. The point is that the more specs improve, the more we start to reach practical user needs limits. Each user and photography type, would have different boundaries for these limits, and every user with these different spec/boundaries are equally important. The more happy users, the better the demand, and demand helps technology to improve and decrease prices.

As we start to reach practical users needs limits for various specs, The difference between the high end and low end cameras decreases, and therefore the lower the price difference between them. Since the low end cameras won't increase in price, the high end would need to decrease in price. This has already happened in the past, and it happens for other technologies too, not just for cameras.

But, at the same time, I realize that I am routinely "throwing away" pixels because I don't need the image to be as large as the native size provided by an 18 mp sensor. Do I care, not really? Pixels are free, or at least so cheap as to be effectively free. But, am I willing to pay a premium to get even more pixels that I will be throwing away? Well, if they don't cost too much, I'd consider it because there will always be those times when I'd like to crop an image to compensate for not having a long-enough lens. Or, there may be a time when I want a poster-size print.

But, as I said, I'm only willing to "buy" more pixels if they are cheap, because I've got enough for most of my needs right now.

I think that when technology improve, it does not just improve in MP, DR, noise etc..., the improvement also includes the ability to decrease production costs and to deliver the improved product at the intended market price. For example a rebel has it's own price range and whatever the spec difference, the new model would still be priced within that range. The 550D had a big improvement compared to the 500D, but then the 600D had a marginal improvement. When we talk about what we would like to get on the new camera, we are expecting that the price will remain within it's standard price range, and the better the specs, the better for us. We won't spend more on extra pixels, better DR or lower noise, I guess we have to look at the product globally.

One the other hand, there may be hidden costs to more pixels that concern me. Will increased resolution reduce Canon's ability to offer higher ISO speeds, less noise and more dynamic range? Only the Canon engineers know for sure, but if that's the case, I'd rather have the latter, because, as I said, I've pretty much got as many pixels as I want right now. And, if those higher pixels mean I have to buy new lenses that cost even more, that's a major disincentive.

There is no need to buy new lenses due to higher MP. I think in this thread neuroanatomist did mentioned something related to this. Improving either the MP count or lens, will improve the overall resolving power. I have showed this in the forum by using DXO data. If I remember well I have used the 28-135 lens just to show that the 18mp APS-C can still deliver significant improvement even when used on a modest lens. There is still more potential on APS-C and even more on FF, if we consider that 18mp APS-C is similar to 40mp+ on FF.

 

[unfocused]

WarStreet,

Great comments. I pretty much agree with everything you said.

Obviously, this is all a theoretical discussion with no right or wrong answers. I just like to speculate on what direction the technology is headed and enjoy hearing from others who take the time to think through things and respond with some thought behind their opinions. Unfortunately, Internet forums often draw people who just want to make "drive-by" comments and don't want to have any of their opinions challenged.

My background is in media, marketing and public information, so I enjoy trying to figure out the marketing strategies of Canon, Nikon, etc. and guessing how they will respond to the marketplace. I find that many people have a really strange idea about how companies work (too many Hollywood movies with evil multinational corporations trying to take over the world). It's really very simple: companies like Canon want to sell their products and make a return on their investment. They can only do that if they can give consumers what they want (or think they want).

Competition forces companies to improve their products and keep their prices low. Which is why we can buy such incredibly cool cameras at prices that we can afford.

Anyway, thanks for taking the discussion seriously. I enjoy reading what others think (although, since I live in the middle of the U.S., I am very jealous of someone living on an island in the Mediterranean. )

 

[J. McCabe]

I couldn't care less whether FF cameras can have more MP and at the same time superior noise control and DR. It's just that I don't want more MP.

It's the same problem I am facing. BMW are continually improving their performance while decreasing fuel consumption. I hate this efficiency war ! ???

And that's supposed to be an analogy how ?

I will try to explain it the best way I can although English is not my native language.

"I couldn't care less whether FF cameras can have more MP and at the same time superior noise control and DR. It's just that I don't want more MP."

translates to I don't care of technology improvements, I don't want A (MP count) to improve even although B (noise, DR, etc..) will improve too

"It's the same problem I am facing. BMW are continually improving their performance while decreasing fuel consumption. I hate this efficiency war"

translates to I don't care of technology improvements, I don't want A (car performance) to improve even although B (fuel consumption) will improve too

That's a mistranslation.

The correct one is I don't want more MP count, only the better noise reduction and greater DR. The later can be improved without getting extra MP.

 

[J. McCabe]

POST REMOVED

Keep it civil

 

[J. McCabe]

POST REMOVED

Keep it civil

Civil is giving an explanation why Canon shouldn't make a lower resolution camera, rather than mocking other people.

 

[papa-razzi]

There are increased costs to more MegaPixels.
- I need to have more storage for my photos - bigger CF/SD cards, bigger hard drives
- I need to have a faster computer with more RAM/CPU speed, etc.
- It takes longer to import bigger files from your CF/SD card to your computer.
I upgraded from an XSi to a 7D. I ended up buying a faster card reader, and ultimately a new computer as well.

Having said that, I enjoy having more MP on the 7D so I can crop into smaller sections of the photo and still have a usable end result.

As far as the whole better gear = better photos thing. I depends upon the types of things you are shooting. The reason I upgraded to a 7D was because I was taking pictures of my kids sporting events. Badly lit gyms, etc. I needed fast shutter speeds in poor light, couldn't use flash, so higher ISO capability was needed. I was also interested in the faster FPS and the better AF system. I definitely get a higher percentage of usable photos because I can keep the shutter speed a bit higher now. The higher FPS allows me to capture more action shots and have more keepers. If I wasn't doing this type of photography, the XSi was fine. In fact I still have it and loved the results I got.

So, better gear isn't a requirement to take great photos, but some types of shots are very hard if not possible with lesser gear - for technical reasons.

 

[motorhead]

Warstreet talked on the previous page of current DR's of 12 stops and a possible future DR of 16 stops. If I could routinely achieve these theoretical laboratory figures in real life I'd be over the moon.

But that's the problem, these inflated figures cannot be achieved in the rough and tumble of real photography. I get at the most 6 real stops of DR, no more. I was out yesterday shooting a steam train. As this is the UK, The day was "changeable". That is to say the sky was mostly white cloud with some pale blue in a very few places. The engine, Oliver Cromwell, is black. I have to resort to producing two TIFF versions in DPP which I manipulate seperately in photoshop before finally flattening to get anything like the DR my eyes registered at the time.

I will not repeat my argument which is based on the very weird shape of the sensor response curve because I have already aired it in a seperate thread, which can be found if anyone can really be bothered. But a Canon with a real DR of 12? YES PLEASE! And 16 stops in future? I've died and gone to heaven!

 

[Lawliet]

Oh yes, right. That's why D700, with half of 5DmII pixel amount is also half the price... What, it is not!?! What the hell!?! :

Well, both give you the same usable resolution.
The price paid for those extra MP that do nothing are the framerate and feature set.