scu said:
I started off with a 2 mp then moved up 4 mp, than 5 mp and now I have 8 mp with the Rebel. Each time my pictures are getting better and better. Having the right camera does help, but the bigger the better in my book.
I would recommend the Rebel over the D50 because most professional photographers I ran into seem to like the Canon over the Nikon.]
By your argument then we all should be using Windows XP because "more profesional use Windows than Macintosh." But do more profesionals use Canon? I wonder. I suspect that Canon DSLRs are only used for a few types of specialized profesional photography. For example I suspect ONLY for sports, events and photo journalium. I seriously doubt many small format DSLRs are used in advertizing, fashion, studio portraits, product photography and so on and so on.
OK once you have identified the segment ofprofesional photography that does use DSLRs (of eiither brand) then you have to ask yourself if what you want to do is like or unlike what those pros do. The nest question to ask is if the Canon D350 and its "kit lens" and anything at all like the camera that those pros are using. After all you might fall into the trap of thinking "Corvetts are nice cars so I will buy a Geo Metro" Same thing if you buy a Rebel because you see a guy with a $6,000 Canon setup on the sidelines of some NFL football game. And what about all the pros doing the bead and butter type product, fashion and ad work using things like Leaf digital backs on medium format or view cameras? Should we buy those cameras because "that is what the pros use?"
In summary you need to ask
1) Which Pros - do they shoot what i shoot?
2) What equipment - Would I actually buy what they use?
Back to megapixels. The LENS makes the image. That image has a certain resolution that is measued in "cycles (or lines) per millimeter. Next you need to ask if the sensor has fine enough resolution to capture the the image projected by the llens. You answer this question by using some enginerring and mathmatics. but the answer for a small format (DX or APS-C) sensor in the 10 to 6 MP range is "it depends" and 10 is not much different fro 6 MP. Remember each time you _double_ the MP count you gain a factor 1.41 in resolution so by goeing from 6MP to 10Mp you gain a factor of 1.29. Going from 6 to 8MP you gain a factor of 1.15 or 15% (resolution being measured as pixels per millilmeter)
The next question is if a consummer level lens used hand held can even project a 50 line per millimeter image onto the sensor? Maybe it''s more like 40lpmm? If so then 6 to 8 MP is about right for a aps-c/DX sized sensor.
On the other hand there is an advantage to having larger pixels. More photons will hit the bigger pixel. "noise" is cause by the statistical nature of light that comes in descrete packets (called photons) In simple terms the signal to noise ratio goes up when you have more signal. You can get more signal with larger pixels. Basically you trade noise, color fidelity and "snap" (or contrast) for resolution. Enginerrs and their managment have to make a value judgment about what matters most.
Nikon is a very conservative company and makes equipment for people who value things like ergonomics, contrast and color and build quality. They are slow to add new technologies into their cameras. Canon takes a slighly different approach and seems to want to sell camera to peole who read specifications and feature lists. and is very quick to add the latest new technologies into their products. Enginerring is always a trade off. for a given price point gainning one thing means you loose something else so you need to decide what you want and what you don't need
Finally you need to think about the final purpose of the images? Will this be made into fine art quality large scale prints, 4x6 inch snapshots or displayed on a web page.
