[Larne]

For well over a year now I have been using an EOS 400D and in the main I have been very happy with it. The images have always tended to be a bit soft but I have generally put that down to the stock EF-S 18-55mm lens and a bit of unsharp mask in Photoshop does wonders. I added an EF 28-135mm IS to the collection a few weeks ago and was a little disappointed not to see a noticeable improvement in the image quality but as I said, it sharpens up okay in Photoshop so no worries.

Now for a little while I have been in the market for a second body. My son is getting interested in photography so I wanted a second digital EOS to allow us to shoot together. I discussed the options with my brother who is a wedding photographer and uses EOS kit. He suggested going for a 'prosumer' camera as opposed to something like a 350D that I was looking at. I was sceptical, after all I would be dropping a few megapixels and would need to buy an older camera so it must surely be less good than a modern one.

Today the box arrived and I became the owner of a rather battered (but still fully functional) 10D. First thing I did was pop outside and take a few pictures. (Well, actually the first thing I did was charge the battery but you know what I mean )

I loaded the pictures into elements and you could have heard my jaw hit the desk from a mile away. The quality of the images, the level of detail, everything is light years ahead of the images I have been getting from the 400D. And this is without having to sharpen the image at all, just looking at it in the organiser! (Shots taken in RAW on both cameras.)

So now I can see the point my brother was making but at the same time I am totally confused. How can a 6.3 megapixel camera produce an image that is substantially sharper than that from a 10.1 megapixel camera when using the same lens?

[danieljamesphotography]

though i have no real basis for this i would imagine it's the sensors, focus points etc that the 10D has and the processor, i've noticed a huge difference in 350D to 40D but not so much on portraits, it's more on nature/macro work

[jake]

Just a guess on my part but I noticed the other day when I looked at my Exif info. that I had accidentaly set my Olympus to a soft sharpness which I soon put right. Maybe you can alter your sharpness setting and it's been set wrong.

[silkstone]

The megapixel count won't really make much difference unless you enlarge the image well beyond what you would normally view at on screen.

I still have a 10D and it's a superb camera. The build quality is better than most of the later ones, and I suspect that greater care went into calibrating them. My 30D has better high ISO performance and a larger screen, and the 10D won't take EF-S lenses, but there's no noticeable difference in image quality.

Having said all that, if you're shooting JPEG it also depends on the in-camera settings for sharpening, contrast, etc. It's possible the 10D has been changed from the default values.

Wanna buy another?

[Larne]

I shoot in RAW on both cameras so it shouldn't be anything to do with the camera processing the image. Still, however they do it I am very happy with the 10D. As I plan to use the 400D for landscape shots and the 10D for more close-up stuff it should work out perfectly.

Another one? No, I think my next step (somewhere down the road) will be to replace the 400D with an early 1D. Again I am assured that even though the first version is only 4 megapixels I will be really impressed with the results. Of course if I suddenly win the lottery then I would love a 5D but I can't see that happening.

[JMitchell]

Why not hold out and get a 40D? I honestly think you'll be more pleased with that than an old 1D, even though the quality would still be good, you can't stop advances in technology in the end...

[Larne]

Well my thinking is that I already have one consumer camera and one prosumer camera. If I decide to upgrade it is probably going to be because I need something that the 10D can't deliver and while the 40D will be better I suspect I will be looking at a bigger step up.

Having said that you are looking at my unformed views as I start into a 'more serious' phase of my photography life. Right now my priority is lenses as I want to get into a bit of portraiture so by the time I am in a position to get another body the chances are my views will have changed completely.

When that time comes I'll be sure to ask for lots of advice (before probably ignoring all of it and buying something shiny and totally over the top )

[JMitchell]

I can see both sides of your dilemma. I was in a similar situation a while ago. I wanted an upgrade from my D50, and there was a cheap used old D1, but despite the image quality, I decided it would have worked out worse than the D50, because it had less (or the same number of) focus points, 4mp compared to 6 (although what does that even mean anymore?).
So I held out and got the D300. I think that was a sensible buy. I mean, the only camera above it in the Nikon range is the D3, and I'm not a professional, so can't really justify the £2k extra.
Just thoughts

[BWEP]

Originally Posted by JMitchell

Why not hold out and get a 40D? I honestly think you'll be more pleased with that than an old 1D, even though the quality would still be good, you can't stop advances in technology in the end...

40D does not convert Raw images ( re my post to which youreplied ) so if Larne is using Photoshop CS2 she would be stuck

[JMitchell]

Ah yes this is true. Good point. Although if you (he) could bare to get Lightroom, then you wouldn't have much of a problem, because that would be the latest version. Or you could use a free RAW converter, save to .tiff or (ergh) JPEG and then edit in PS.
I think it's terrible (even though it's a valid consideration) that software compatibility makes us think twice about buying cameras, Adobe aren't very forgiving....

[Larne]

Larne is thinking that HE clearly needs a makeover!

As it stands I use Elements 6, I can't justify the cost to go up to CS just yet.

Niall

[JMitchell]

*amended Sorry

[Markulous]

Well, if you want a comparison of MPs, take a look at some of my shots which are mainly Sigma SD10 (3.4MP) and, latterly, Canon 350D (8MP) with a few Canon 30Ds (8.2MP, tho' can't recall offhand whether I've uploaded any of these). The Sigma definitely delivers on macro and landscape - and will enlarge to A3 without any probs. But then the Sigma is a true 3.4MPs vs the Canon's interpolated 8MPs

[BWEP]

Originally Posted by JMitchell

Ah yes this is true. Good point. Although if you (he) could bare to get Lightroom, then you wouldn't have much of a problem, because that would be the latest version. Or you could use a free RAW converter, save to .tiff or (ergh) JPEG and then edit in PS.
I think it's terrible (even though it's a valid consideration) that software compatibility makes us think twice about buying cameras, Adobe aren't very forgiving....

Thanks again JM
Again I would make the point why should we have to by expensive specific programes when Adobe does through Elements 6 provide this facility but cannot upgrade CS2!!

Bwep