[cyy47]

This time compared to Canon 550D/ T2i on DPReview.

Noise comparison

"The real star of this comparison is the Pentax K-x though, which at its default NR setting delivers an impressive amount of detail right up to ISO 12800."

"the Pentax K-x delivering the best output in our opinion, with plenty of detail still showing through the (inevitable) noise even at ISO 12800."

[cloudswimmer]

12mp vs. 18mp on an APS-C sensor, I would hope the K-X comes out ahead

[Rondec]

12mp vs. 18mp on an APS-C sensor, I would hope the K-X comes out ahead

Yes, but these are not 100 percent crops. What you see here is significant smearing, even at lower iso levels. Much more heavy handed than what you see with 7D. I certainly wouldn't be satisfied with this kind of performance.

[rawr]

It is interesting to see the K-x being put up against the 550D, and the D5000, and comparing so well.

It is notable that the K-x leads not only in the high-ISO comparisons, but also that it compares excellently with the 550D in the JPG/RAW resolution tests as well. In fact you can't tell them apart in the photographic tests on resolution, which the reviewer notes.

So overall, what exactly are those 50% extra megapixels in the 550D doing? If they aren't contributing much to image quality in terms of resolution or high-ISO, they aren't worth having.

[Pentax Convert]

So overall, what exactly are those 50% extra megapixels in the 550D doing? If they aren't contributing much to image quality in terms of resolution or high-ISO, they aren't worth having.

They're selling the camera to Joe Sixpack, and pixel peepers on a budget.

[cloudswimmer]

In fact you can't tell them apart in the photographic tests on resolution, which the reviewer notes.

So overall, what exactly are those 50% extra megapixels in the 550D doing? If they aren't contributing much to image quality in terms of resolution or high-ISO, they aren't worth having.

No doubt the K-X is a killer at high iso's.I'm selling my K10, have a k20D, a 550D on order, and may get a K-X with the K10D money.However comparing the K-X and 550D at base iso (which is what I have always, and will continue to shoot with small sensor dslr's) to my eyes the 550D takes the K-X for detail.Not a landslide victory, but very evident none the less.These screen grabs show the two cameras at base iso.The first three from IR, and the last two from DPR.

[rawr]

..to my eyes the 550D takes the K-X for detail.Not a landslide victory, but very evident none the less..

You have to admit that the difference isn't hugely evident in those samples. You could easily shuffle them up and no-one would be the wiser at all.

As the DPR guys say:

Both cameras are capable of excellent resolution, but the EOS 550D just edges ahead thanks to its greater pixel count. However, the difference is so subtle as to be almost irrelevant to normal photography at print sizes smaller than A3.

Canon EOS 550D / Rebel T2i Review: 26. Compared to (RAW): Digital Photography Review

It's hard not to concur. In the case of some cameras (eg the 5DII) the megapickle resolution difference really does leap out at you, but not here.

[cloudswimmer]

You have to admit that the difference isn't hugely evident in those samples. You could easily shuffle them up and no-one would be the wiser at all.

Obviously in an A3 print no one will be the wiser.I'll admit I'm a pixel peeper, and when I get my 8x10 negative drum scans back from West Coast a grain peeper Now my wife on the other hand is not and could care less.When I showed her the screen grabs on my 24" Eizo Coloredge monitor, and said pick out the side that shows better detail, she nailed it instantly.In a print I seriously doubt it.

Its so close these days when it comes to the smaller prints like A3, its almost moot point imho which camera you shoot if your like me and always use base iso.Below is a screen grab I did for fun comparing the 5DmkII and G10 at base iso, uprezzing the G10 to match the mkII.I then printed them out at 12x15 on A3/SuperB Harman Gloss FB AI via my 4800, and no one could tell the difference

I'm keeping the K20D, selling the K10D, and trying out the 550D to use strictly on a Nodal Ninja 5 pano head.If it doesn't work out no worries, ship it back.I almost sprang for a 5DmkII, but if I'm going to carry around that weight I figure I'll just carry the 4x5 which is no heavier, and has much better image quality when scanned on a Tango.

[rawr]

Wow. All those brand-names! One day I'll figure out what it all means

But yeah, Luminous Landscapes did the same thing with the G10 and some medium format cameras or something. Even experts can have a hard time picking it.

Aside from all the pixel-peepery above, the 550D looks like a fine camera. Consumer-grade cameras are getting so good nowadays. The bar keeps on rising every 6 months.

[eyew]

Met up with a friend who has a Canon 40d with a 18-80mm lens and he was blown away by the K-X ISO capability and the Sigma 17-70mm when I showed him some shots at high ISO.

When he heard the price of the K-X and saw the results, he almost fell off his chair :-) Not really a fair comparison as he would've gotten his setup about 2 years back now though...

[Marc Sabatella]

12mp vs. 18mp on an APS-C sensor, I would hope the K-X comes out ahead

I wouldn't necessarily expect that at all. I don't know at what point there really starts to be a negative effect from cramming too many pixels on a sensor, but I don't think we're anywhere need there yet for APS-C. Might be true of 12MP versus 18MP on a typical P&S sensor, but until you reach the point where you've got so many pixels on the sensor that the gaps between them starts to become a really significant issue, there's no inherent downside to adding pixels. That's kind of a myth, propagated by reviews who compare 100% crops rather than making apples-to-apples comparisons (ie, comparing images at the same sizes). And certainly, we've got plenty of existence proof that it's possible to add pixels while reducing noise - consider the K20D or K-x or even K-7 as compared to any of the 6MP camera. Even the much-maligned 10MP Sony sensor cameras end up matching or outperforming the 6MP cameras when performing objective tests or apples-to-apples comparisons (K10D being a possible exception because of it's highly unorthodox ADC architecture).

[Quicksand]

It's hard not to concur. In the case of some cameras (eg the 5DII) the megapickle resolution difference really does leap out at you, but not here.

By that standard, both Vlasic and Heinz are way ahead of Canon.

[cloudswimmer]

I wouldn't necessarily expect that at all. I don't know at what point there really starts to be a negative effect from cramming too many pixels on a sensor, but I don't think we're anywhere need there yet for APS-C. Might be true of 12MP versus 18MP on a typical P&S sensor, but until you reach the point where you've got so many pixels on the sensor that the gaps between them starts to become a really significant issue, there's no inherent downside to adding pixels. That's kind of a myth, propagated by reviews who compare 100% crops rather than making apples-to-apples comparisons (ie, comparing images at the same sizes). And certainly, we've got plenty of existence proof that it's possible to add pixels while reducing noise - consider the K20D or K-x or even K-7 as compared to any of the 6MP camera. Even the much-maligned 10MP Sony sensor cameras end up matching or outperforming the 6MP cameras when performing objective tests or apples-to-apples comparisons (K10D being a possible exception because of it's highly unorthodox ADC architecture).

Good points and I stand corrected.With newer technology on the horizon like quantum film, it will be interesting to see where this all goes.One thing I have noticed in my own travels down the higher MP road is diffraction limiting effects the higher the pixel count goes, but since I'm mostly stitching these days its not really much of a problem anymore.

[flippedgazelle]

By that standard, both Vlasic and Heinz are way ahead of Canon.

I'm sure Canon is working hard to ketchup.

[RolloR]

i just love pixel peeping!