Better lens or more megapixels to improve definition

I currently have a 10D and a 28-105mm main lens. I use if for general travel and art

photography. I currently produce prints up to A3+ which are just about good

enough definition. However, it can be a bit marginal and it would be good to go to

A2 if possible. The question is, would �600/$1200 be better on more

megapixels,e.g. a 40D or 450D or a better quality lens, e.g. 24-105mm L?

Alternatively, is there no point unless you have both more megapixels and a better

lens? I do the basic interpolation and sharpening in photoshop.

Thanks

The 10D was (and still is) a terrific camera. However, Canon DSLR bodies have moved forward a long way since.<br>In your current position, I would lean towards a new camera with a Digic III sensor. Keep in mind that the models you mention above are still of the APS-C format, (just like the 10D).<br>In other words, with your existing main lens, you will be able to reap the benefit of the improved sensor technology.<p>Better (L) glass should never be discounted, but as a 5D owner, I would say that these lenses comes into their own, on a full frame body.

Upgrade the body. Imager performance improved significantly at the 10D to 20D break. Keep in mind, though, that imaging electronics basically don't vary within the same generation. A Rebel XT is essentially equivalent to a 20D on that front.

 

The lens won't affect sharpness much if you can use it at its sweet spot. Shoot closed down a couple of stops from wide open, typically around f8.

You must increase sensor size. MP count is for advertising purposes and beyond a certain point it is nearly worthless. Secondly if the lens will not resolve to be sharp, you will then need a better lens.

 

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos

 

Go to the link and see if the considered lens is better.

 

I think the biggest bag or the buck is a 5D camera.

I'm convinced the lens is 90% responsible of the sharpness of the image.

The sensor size is to be taken in account if you talk about noise level or uniformity of tones (due to the exact size of adjacent pixels). Of course, big pixels are better than smaller ones! But you own a 10D.

 

You should organize one test having a good lens (loaned or rented) and shot the same pictures comparing your lens. Use the RAW format to get the best out of the camera sensor.

 

I was astonished, many years ago, to see a 2MPix Kodak 520 output using the exellent Canon 100mm 2.8 macro lens!

 

Consider that the sensor outputs what it receives on its surface. Rubbish in means rubbish out.

 

cheers

 

Luigi

If you had a 20D or later model, I'd say glass every day of the week and twice on

Sunday. But having used a 10D a few times, I'd suggest getting a newer body for many

reasons besides IQ. How about doing a little of both - get a used 20D or 30D and see

how it does for you, and then figure out if you need to put the rest of your budget to

work at all?

Get a better lens...

Both.

 

If you had a 20D, I would also be in the "just get a new lens" camp, but even just upgrading from the 10D to the 20D would provide a noticable difference, imo. That 10D sensor is now several generations old, and at this point, you'd probably benefit a lot from having a newer camera, like a 40D or 450D. I ordinarily wouldn't suggest worrying about megapixels, but I generally set the limit that I recommend at 8MP, because with the Canon sensors at least, it seems to be the point above which the results are more than adaquate for my eye. Upgrading the camera to a system with better AF and viewfinder will probably, as a side effect, provide a little more sharpness, due to better focus accuracy and consistency.

 

Upgrading lenses is always a good idea if you can afford it, and I normally recommend it before buying a new body, unless your body is already more than 3-4 years old. You almost always notice a substantial improvement with better glass. Ask anybody who upgraded their 18-55 to a 17-40/4L!

 

In this case, I think the body is the primary problem, with the lens being a secondary problem. Replace the body, then the lens, but upgrade both over time.

That last sentence wasn't clear on my part... What I meant was:

 

Upgrade the body now. Then over time, when you can afford it, consider upgrading the lens as well. Both upgrades will benefit you substantially, but right now, the body is probably holding you back more than the lens.

I'll join those suggesting that a photographer using a 6MP 10D will likely benefit from

upgrading the body at this point. Not only have the sensors improved in MP and

other terms, but other aspects of the cameras have also improved significantly.

 

My first reaction to your lens situation is that I'd want at least one additional lens to

give some decent coverage at the wide end. But then, you have used this lens for a

number of years and _you_ must be happy with it... and that is more important than

what I think.

 

Dan

I own a 10D, a 5D, a 28-135 IS (probably similar quality to your 28-105), and a 24-105L. Based on what I've seen with these lenses and bodies, I'd say you might need both. However, a 40D will only give you 25% more resolution (from the square root of the ratio of megapixels). I disagree with others here about the 10D. It is a bit slow to process/write and a bit short on features compared to its modern counterparts, but it's a fine camera in terms of image quality.

 

I think what you really need is an upgrade to full frame. Then you can shoot with shorter lenses, which pack more detail into their image circles. If you migrate to a 5D, you'll be able to pack 60% more detail into your images, give or take. The pixel density is about the same between the 10D and 5D, so I'd estimate you'd be satisfied with prints about 60% larger in dimension -- or perhaps a bit less than that, as the margins are always somewhat softer than the center.

 

I also think the 24-105L is an excellent lens that is beautifully matched to the 5D. The 5D cannot resolve all of the detail that the 24-105 can project, so it should be good for future upgrades to cameras like the 1DsMkIII.

 

Like Joshua, I feel you can move incrementally in the right direction and eventually be where you want to be. However, I would recommend buying a 24-105L first and then waiting for the 5D to be replaced before buying it too. Personally, I don't think a 40D is going to mean that much to you in image quality, although it's certainly a more capable camera overall.

>>>"Better (L) glass should never be discounted, but as a 5D owner, I would say that these lenses comes into their own, on a full frame body."<<<

 

Agreed!

 

Jason

If you were printing at 12 x 8 max I would say go for the glass; but at A2 you will need every pixel you can get. As others have said, improve your lenses later.

 

I recently went from 10D to 40D; originally I was thinking about getting a bargain 30D but when I looked at prices (in the UK) the 40D with cashback was virtually the same as a 30D.

 

I'm only printing at A3 but notice the difference, and straight from camera images, with 0 enhancements, do seem sharper with the 40D. There are also a few minor improvements in viewing images, and it is impossible to accidentally erase everything now (bet somebody has done it though) and, although it doesn't matter too much to me, everything is a lot faster.

There is FAR more improvement in using a 24-70L with your 10D vs getting a 20D body with your current zoom. I know because I had a 10D for a long time and just going from the 28-135 IS to the 24-70L made a huge differences in my pictures. So much so that I continued to upgrade by glass and only switched body when the 5D came out.

I think an upgrade from the 10D is in order. With your budget, anything from the 20D to the 40D would work well for your purposes, but I also join in with the others stating that an upgrade to a 5D would be your best option overall with your lens selection.

 

I currently have a 24-70L 2.8 / 40D combo, and find that there really isn't much of a limit to what sizes I can print. I also have the 17-40L which, to me, is invaluable for those times when I need something wider on the Crop sensor.

 

So summary... an upgrade to a 20D or even a 40D would be a good short term investment if budget is limiting. If you have the time to wait, a 5D would probably be a significantly better option (or a 5D mkII theoretically)

I have a 10D which I use in tandem with my 30D. I noticed a great deal of difference between the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (which is optically close to your 28-105mm lens) lens that I used previously on my 10D and the 24-70mm f/2.8L lens that I use now.

 

IMO, there is a bigger difference between the image quality of the 10D using the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens and the 24-70mm f/2.8L lens than there is between using the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens on the 10D and using it on the 30D.

 

An alternative which will provide a body upgrade and increased optical quality is a 30D body (refurbished from Adorama $640 with free shipping) and the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens which runs about $419.

 

The Tammy is a great lens and I have been using a refurb 30D for the past year with no problems. I had to send my 10D and 350D cameras, which I bought new, in to be serviced within the first 90 days I owned them. I have more confidence in the quality control at the Canon Service Centers than I have in the quality control at the Canon Assembly Line.

Good to see we all agree on something. :)

 

I'll vote for better glass. Heck, why not? I have a 50/50 chance of getting it right don't I? -- Perhaps not. Both might be necessary.

 

I will say though, that if you are selling these photos to the buying public, upgrade the camera first. They all think it's the megapixels that count.

Thank you for all your help. Plenty of food for thought there.

Howdy!

 

I have a background in image quality engineering.

 

First, purchase the lens. The lens will make the biggest difference in almost any imaging system.

 

Second, purchase Genuine Fractals from onOne software to give yourself some "extra" resolution via it's excellent scaling algorithm. It cannot add detail where there wasn't any before, but it can give your enlargements a much better look than any of the interpolation methods in Photoshop.

 

Third, purchase either a 40D, a 5D, or wait for the 5D successor. Both the 40D and 5D are excellent choices. They both have good low light/high ISO properties, but the 40D actually has just a little more dynamic range overall than the 5D.

 

Of course, the 5D has a full size sensor, which means that you can get good wide end performance out of your L series lens, which may be the deciding factor in your decision.

 

Tuppence,

 

Paulsky

One more thing about upgrading that is sometimes forgotten: zooms aren't always the right choice. With perhaps the exception of mechanical build, every EF prime I have outperforms my L zooms in that focal length.

 

If your interest starts at 35mm and longer, look into primes. Spend $80 on a 50mm f1.8 to start.

Howdy!

 

I second Robert's suggestion about the 50mm f/1.8, also known as the "nifty fifty". For the money, it's an excellent lens.

 

Another great buy is the 85mm f/1.8. It has excellent image quality, a decent range on a crop sensor camera like the 10D, and it sells for about $300 US.

 

Later,

 

Paulsky

I agree with Richard Crowe. Another plug for Tamron 17-50/2.8 - excellent travel lens. I really like mine.

I sold my 20D several months ago since I wan't using it. I was using my 5D more and the 20D was sitting around collecting dust. I noticed though with the same lens and settings, 20 D produced sharper images than the 5D. Maybe this is due to pixel density is better on the 20D than the 5D. Just something to think about but if I were you, I'd keep the 10D and get better glass.

<p style="padding-left:2em;"><em>I use if for general travel and art photography.</em>

<p>

Make sure your camera technique is up to snuff. Are you using a tripod for your travel and art photography? <p>You might get more bang for the buck by using a tripod and good technique.

<p>

Get a tripod! Use it.