Better lens or more megapixels to improve definition

[bigsquashbuggy]

Camera bodies come and go. Good lenses on the other hand, hang around a long time. Have you considered a good used 30D and using the balance of the cash for some more glass (like the 70-200 f4)?

[John Crowe]

I had the 10D and upgraded to a Nikon D2X 12 MP 1.5x body and a Kodak SLRn 14 MP full frame body. I use strictly the best Nikon prime lenses and mostly with ED glass (like Canon "L") and used all these lenses on the 10D as well.

 

 

It is more difficult to tell the difference between the best glass and lesser glass on the 10D since it cannot resolve well enough. Differences that can be clearly seen on a Velvia 50 slide do not appear on the 10D image. However, having said that, I was shocked that while the the step up to 12 MP did make a significant difference it was not as much as I thought it would be. The 10D is still a very good resolving DSLR. Much to my surprise, although the SLRn is full frame and only has 2 MP more than the D2X, it is significantly sharper than the D2X! So there is more to full frame image sensors than just the math.

 

 

From what I have read about the 20D and 30D, while they are much faster than the 10D and have better high ISO performance, they are no better, and perhaps even worse at ISO 100, where I shoot 99% of the time.

 

 

I suggest that the 40D would be your minimum step up in body with the 5D being more preferred.

 

 

Having used many different Canon, Nikon, and Zeiss lenses over the past 25 years I will say that you have to choose your lenses very carefully if you really want to see significant increases in resolution. The 24-105 L IS lens is more about having IS than providing the best possible image quality. I recommend keeping your zoom for times when you need flexibility and investing in a couple of high quality prime lenses at the focal lengths that you find that you use a lot.

 

 

As for what to do first? That depends on your specific alternatives and your specific uses. With respect to this thread I'd take a 40D or 5D over the 24-105 L IS. If the choice were a better lens like a Canon 100/2.8 Macro, Canon 200/2.8 L, Canon 135/2 L, Canon 16 or 17 - 35/2.8 L, Canon 24 or 28 - 80/2.8 L, or Canon 70 or 80 - 200/L then I'd recommend the lens upgrade instead of the body upgrade.

[shuo_zhao]

The 10D definitely was a good camera, but its 6MP pixle count is on the low side of things nowadays. If you want to print large, you may going to need more megapixles. Of course, common sense tells us better glass will always help.

 

Maybe you should purchase a new camera and some new glasses, and return some of them after trying how things work out.

[ricardo_tomasi]

Sell everything and get a Pentax K20D with some pancakes.

[d_g5]

Better lens! Ge the better lens! If you have 6megapixels or more... suck it up and get better pictures overall with a better lens!

[sfcole]

I agree with Paul Smith about getting a better lens. I'm a Pentax user with a measly

k100d (6mp). I wasn't thrilled with image quality from my 50-200 zoom, but then found

a 50 mm 1.7 prime. HUGE difference. My 11x17s were suddenly outstanding.

 

However, I disagree about Genuine Fractals. I tried it and found no extra resolution--

just extra edge sharpness. I wouldn't spend the money on it.

[michael j hoffman]

My turn.

 

I, too, have a 10D. I also recently purchased an Olympus E-420. The difference in detail from the 10D with a decent fixed focal length lens to the E-420 with the kit zoom was staggering (I can't wait to see the results the Oly 25/2.8 provides)! The Olympus 10 MP sensor blows away the image detail I am able to capture with my 10D.

 

Upgrade the camera.

 

Michael J Hoffman

[linh dinh]

For sports, if you don't want to spend $4,500 for the 1D Mk III, you should get a 40D for $1,299.99 brand new.

For landscapes and portraits, the 5D is better but costs about double the 40D .

For indoor, the 40D works pretty fast, built tough, and the AF of the 40D is accurate.

[bobatkins]

You can get a 40D for under $950 right now since there's an instant rebate from Canon. You'll see a significant difference between the 10D and 40D in terms of both camera operation and image quality.

[jwenting]

if you can't get optimal results from your current camera with your current lenses you certainly won't get optimal results from a camera with more megapixels using the same lenses.

And even with your current camera the lenses are almost certainly the limiting factor in what you can achieve.

 

And don't think that the higher MP count on newer models will give you much more resolution.

Remember that double the MP only gives you something like 25% more pixels per axis.

And that 40D doesn't have twice the MP of the 10D (I think, it certainly won't have more than twice the MP).

[carbon_dragon]

Well, there's no real "right" answer because the "imaging chain" depends on everything from the image capture to the image presentation (online or print). You can improve the weakest point, but to really get results, you need to consider everything as a system.

 

Either your kit lens or the 6.1MP could be your limiting factor, but even if you identify the weak link correctly (which would require some experimentation) your resulting improvement might not be substantial.

 

If I had to guess, I'd replace the body first but I'd probably try to replace both relatively quickly. If that isn't financially possible, the Canon 50/1.4 or 1.8 is likely to be a cheap alternative (too bad it's 75mm equivalent) or possibly the Sigma 30/1.4 (which I haven't tried, but which gets consistently good reviews).

 

Also, without good technique (tripod and/or image stabilization etc) you might lose enough resolution from shake to negate your new resolution so that's something to consider too. Good luck.

[surfidaho]

Howdy!

 

Scott wrote:

 

"However, I disagree about Genuine Fractals. I tried it and found no extra resolution-- just extra edge sharpness. I wouldn't spend the money on it."

 

Like I said, Genuine Fractals cannot add detail that is not there in the first place, but it does make big prints from small sensors look much better by smoothing out the jaggies without softening the image.

 

If you are printing anything bigger than 8x12 from a six megapixel sensor, Genuine Fractals will give you a definite quality improvement.

 

Later,

 

Paulsky

[digitmstr]

I can tell you this FACT: I am looking at pictures taken with my old 10D and the 24-70L or 70-200 f/4L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS or 135 f/2L and in each and every instance the images literally blow away those taken with my newest XSi with its *kit lens*.

 

If I had to choose, I'd take a lower res. camera with top of the line glass over the opposite any day.

 

It's not ONLY about the resolving power of certain lenses or sensors. A better lens will give you better colors, contrast, bokeh, AF, operational features, speed of focusing, etc... To me, it's a no brainer...

[tom_luongo1]

10D = 3072x2048 = 6.29 MP

40D = 3888 x 2592 = 10.1 MP

 

The increase in linear resolution is only 26% (double the pixels would be 41%) The easy way to figure this out is not to look at the total MP but look at how many pixels across the frame. 3888 pixels across is only 26% more than 3072 across.

 

If pixels were all that mattered, going to a 10MP point-and-shoot would be an upgrade.

[milbourn]

Just out of interest I have had a quick count of the views so far and these are:

 

Lens (15), Camera (12), Camera and Lens (4)

The camera total breaks down as 30D/40D (7), 5D(5)

[benbangerter]

Here is another consideration:<div></div>

[laurentbaig]

I had a 20D and I could definitely tell the quality difference between good glass and consumer grade glass. That's only 2 mp more than the 10d. The 10d is a fine camera with possibly better inherent noise characteristics than the 20d due to the larger pixel area on the sensor.

 

No matter what camera/sensor you use, better glass yields better images. More megapixels simply allows you to enlarge more. Do you want better quality prints or just bigger images? Answer that question and you'll have your answer.

[j.t.ecker]

You should upgrade both camera and glass. I know this can get expensive but you started when you were eight and have been active since 2001, so it�s not a passing fancy. You are out doing social events and weddings for friends, both are opportunities to generate a little income to subsidies the expenses.

 

The best approach to take if funds are tight is to come up with a plan to build your kit. Figure out what pieces best fit your needs and look how each purchase fills a need in your kit. In your case I would start with the camera followed with L glass. Upgrades in cameras are far more frequent than upgrades in glass.

 

Everyone seems to fall into the megapixel trap, more does not always mean better. There is far more that goes into IQ than megapixels, you will gain more IQ from the upgraded technology of a newer body than you will from more megapixels.

 

Once you invest in L glass that fills a need in your kit the lens will likely outlive you. Don�t buy any glass that does not fit into what your kit may become in the future, better to spend the money once to fill a need in your kit than to have to replace it later.

 

A very good option is to buy used, you can get great deals on �last year�s� bodies. Take a look here for some resources: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Where-To-Buy-Used-Canon-Lenses.aspx or type in �used canon forums� in Google.

 

You have some very nice stuff posted at clickpic.com (the link in your bio at photo.net is wrong, it should be http://www1.clikpic.com/amilbourn/) Upgrading your kit will bring you many rewards.

[peter_daalder]

Andrew, <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00MZCD"> this 2007 thread </a> might also be of interest to you...<br>Best regards.