My guess is that the pixels on the 22mp Canon _are_ "inferior" in
some aspects to the pixels on the 5D. The two cameras have entirely
different end uses. As I understand it, the 22mp Canon is not
designed to be a high-ISO, low-light wunderbrick, but rather a studio/
fine art wunderbrick where low ISO is more the norm. I seem to recall
that earlier high MP Canons furnish more noise than the 5D.
But then I don't pretend to be a gear-head, or even to play one on
TV. <g>
Me, I got my sights set on that new D3 Nikon. Now there's the promise
of some truly bad-ass pixels! <wink>
--Bob
On Sep 18, 2007, at 7:43 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> <snip> The problem is they were already 2 stops behind and, IMHO,
> are likely to remain so. But I do hope they succeed
> or come close. I just don't think it likely.
>
> Andrew Fildes wrote:
>> This would imply that the pixels on the new Canon 22mp are only half
>> the size of the ones in the 5D and so must be inferior. Somehow, I'll
>> bet they aren't.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|