Quite so Emily. Like I said it's a quagmire.
But I'll tell you this. I have a 10D and a 30D and there's nothing much between them in terms of picture quality. I wouldn't bank on getting too much of a jump in quality even with the new 1D MkIII.
It may have better speed and be a stronger machine and have a gazillion new features but I'd put my money on the fact that if you made an A3 print from each of the same subject matter you'd be hard pressed to say which camera took which picture. More so if you look at them one at a time instead of side by side.
The 10D is still a great tool.
Camera makers make cameras to sell. They put new features in to sell more and to have something to advertise. Not neccesarily to make your pictures better.
Head of the Department of Photography,
Muscat
Sultanate of Oman
From: Emily L. Ferguson <elf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, June 1, 2007 11:13:58 PM
Subject: Re: Sensor Cell Size? ( wasNikon Proud?)
>All that said, you would most certainly get better results from a
>new 10MP camera than an old 6MP camera.
Surely you mean cameras of the same status here. A 10MP consumer P&S
with a tiny little sensor is no way going to do what my 10D can do
with its 6 MP. But my 10D can't come anywhere near a 1D Mark II even
though they both have a multiplier and the Mark II only has 2.5 more
MPs.
--
Emily L. Ferguson
mailto:elf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
508-563-6822
New England landscapes, wooden boats and races
http://www.landsedgephoto.com
http://e-and-s.instaproofs.com/
You snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck
in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.