Originally Posted by Tannin
Roy, we all crop as much as we have to. Some of my published shots are 100% crops - not too many, but a few. I'm not for one moment saying that a 100% crop for artistic reasons is a bad thing (though of course it's better to avoid that if you can). The point here is that if you take the same shot from the same place of the same poor little bird with the same lens, and for artistic reasons you need to take a 100% crop from the 40D image to get your finished image, you will only need to take a 66% crop from the otherwise identical 50D image. Or, if the bird is so small in frame that you need a 100% crop from the 50D, then to print it at the same size from the 40D image you need to take a "150% crop" - i.e., enlarge the 100% 40D crop from (say) 640 x 480 to something like 800 x 600! And the result, of course, will be well below the quality of the 50D result either way.
Tannin, I appreciated what you are saying but I am not explaining my point very well (I even confuse myself sometimes
Not sure if my maths is right here or not but this is how I see it:
I very often take a 800 x 533 crop (426kb) from the 40D and get a acceptable image for my purposes.
Now I know that to get the bird the same size in the frame from the 50D I need only take a 980 x 653 crop (640kb) and probably the noise will be no worst than the 40D but
I am trying to be greedy
I want to be able to take a 800 x 533 crop (426kb) from the 50D thus giving me a more aggressive crop than I could manage on the 40D. Is the noise and detail from the 50D 426kb crop going to be equal to the 426kb crop from the 40D? (now I know that people say this is not comparing eggs with eggs but this would be my main reason to upgrade to the 50D)