BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CAU" data-source="post: 1333652" data-attributes="member: 55324">I guess that that's one way of looking at it. However, more pixels means always smaller pixels (if the size of the sensor is kept constant), and you'll end up with WORSE high ISO performance unless you improve the sensor. In this case Canon has improved the microlensing in front of the sensor, and been able to lower the noise to a level similar to the 40D. Had Canon kept the number of pixels the same, the new camera would probably have had much better high ISO performance. One cost of the smaller pixels is also a lower dynamic range (<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page19.asp" target="_blank">as measured by DPReview</a>).Based on <a href="http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=1325922&postcount=69" target="_blank">this</a> comparison in another thread, the noise level of the 50D is pretty similar to that of the 40D even after cropping the picture to the same size (the difference is only just noticeable, but can depend slightly on the RAW conversion). You can also see the lower dynamic range of the 50D (ok, this can also depend on the RAW processing).Anyway, I would still select the 50D over the 40D if they were at a similar price, but I believe that the higher pixel count is more of an advantage when using low ISO values than high.</blockquote>