My Photo


« Why I May Not Buy the Canon 50D. | Main | The Digital Photography Show #96 - OnOne Software's $500 Giveaway »

September 05, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


"I think the jury is still out on whether or not the new Digic IV processor can achieve what Katz calls "cleaner" images"

Agreed, without SERIOUS processing improvements, smaller sensor sites almost inevitably means more noise. It seems the goal these days is to get as many MP with the SAME noise level, instead of leaving the MP alone and REDUCING the noise! Wouldn't most consumers rather shoot clean low-light photos than make poster-sized prints?

Cooper Strange

I feel the same, so much so that I am still shooting my Nikon D100 which came out in 2002, is "only" 6 megapixels, and pretty much loses on any spec sheet comparison with any other camera. I almost have to roll my eyes when I hear about the 20+ MP Sony full frame coming out. Notice the Canon 5D and Nikon D700 are both 12MP. Why? It is not because they cannot cram more on there; it is because it is not really beneficial to do so.


I couldn't agree more with your post. The New York Times needs to be held up to higher standards than the garden variety of "review" sites out there. As someone who enjoys reading articles about cameras, I find it very frustrating when authors post commentaries that just rehash what was said in the press release. If I wanted to hear a bunch of unsubstantiated claims, I'd go to straight to the manufacturer to hear it. Similarly, if I want to know how the claims hold up, I go to reviewers who *test* the equipment.
Thanks for pointing out the flaws in this article. Hopefully it will remind us all to be more critical when reading articles like this.


I'll be a bit of a contrarian here: There's no evidence out there yet that the 50D CAN'T do what its advertised as being able to do. Bottom line: until the tests are in from places like PopPhoto and Digital Camera Review, we really don't know. I, for one, hope Canon has licked the issue of more pixels / more noise. They are really sticking their neck out there if they haven't!


You are correct to note that there is, in fact, no evidence saying that the camera isn't capable of living up to its claims. The problem is that the NYT article accepts the claims as fact even though independent testing has not yet been performed on the camera. I do hope that Canon is successful at living up to its claims, but I'd like to see the proof in the digital pudding before I accept the claims made by the company's marketing department and regurgitated through a "journalist".

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where to Find Me

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter
    Blog powered by Typepad