Support

You can support this site without any cost or disadvantage at all by clicking this link to Amazon or the one on the left before buying anything – be it underpants, a cupboard, a TV, a pen, a lens or a camera. Amazon is the only shop worldwide, I’m really satisfied with to a 100%, so I have no caveats advertising them. Of course, you can also directly donate a small amount of money, e.g. the amount you would have spent for a magazine, with the button on the left.

 

Introduction

This is an Update to my former comparison of 10 vs. 15 Megapixels / EOS 40D vs. 50D Resolution. Please read this article for the background. This time I added an EOS 300D, the original EOS Digital Rebel in the USA, a 6MP DSLR - just to drive it to the max.

The test

See "Megapixels: 10 vs. 15". For the whole setup, which is identical, apart from that this time I used the new Canon 10-18mm 1:4.5-5.6 @ 10mm f/5.6, because I had to do the test indoors and wanted to use a lens as wide as possible to produce details as fine as possible and this lens delivers sharpness near sensor-resolution of a 15MP EOS 50D at this setting. 

 

The results

So here are the results. Here is the comparison of the 300D (Rebel) to the 40D and the 50D regarding resolution, or 6MP vs. 10MP vs. 15MP:

First EOS 50D, 15 Megapixels, 100% crop from roughly the center, unsharp mask 0.7 pixels and strength 200:

50D_Choice_USM_Crop.JPG

And 40D, 10 Megapixels, resized (bicubic) to 15 Megapixels (exact match 4752x3168 pixels), 100% crop from roughly the center, unsharp mask 0.7 pixels and strength 200:

40D_Bicubic_USM_CROP.JPG

And finally the 300D, the original Digital Rebel, 6 Megapixels, resized (bicubic) to 15 Megapixels (exact match 4752x3168 pixels), 100% crop from roughly the center, unsharp mask 0.7 pixels and strength 200:

300D_Bicubic_USM_Crop_Noise.JPG 

Side by side, from left to right 300D, 40D, 50D:

300D_Bicubic_USM_Crop_Noise2.JPG 40D_Bicubic_USM_CROP2.JPG 50D_Choice_USM_Crop2.JPG

And finally, 200% crops, left 300D (6MP), right 50D (15MP):

300D_Bicubic_USM_Crop_Noise2_200.JPG50D_Choice_USM_Crop2_200.JPG

 

The interpretation

See "Megapixels: 10 vs. 15". Even 6MP is enough for anything. Or better: The difference is only visible when compared side-by-side. Now and here you can see the difference, but this is absolutely minimal and dismal. Are a student or poor or a cheepskate? Get yourself an old 300D for € 50,- including an 18-55mm KIT-lens and be happy forever.

Letting the relevance completely aside, the difference between 6MP and 10MP, as small as it is, still is a lot more obvious than the difference between 10MP and 15MP. On a purely calculatory basis, the absolute added pixels are a bit less, while the calculatory percentage of added pixels is a tiny bit higher: It's 816 vs. 864 added horizontal pixels but 21% (6->10) to 19% (10->15) gain horizontally. But while I'd estimate the real resoution plus from 10MP to 15MP being maybe 5% (or 8% with a lot of good will) in comparison to 20% more pixels, the resolution advantage of the 6MP - image vs. the 10MP image I'd estimate at something well above 10%, maybe 15%, in any case a lot higher in comparison. 

Thinking about it, this is a logical result of what I try to explain in "The background" in "Megapixels: 10 vs. 15": The smaller pixels get, the more a single ray of light or a single bright, "one pixel sized" point is bended and "hits" more than one pixel at a time. Of course, this effect gets worse, the smaller the pixels get. The above comparison proves an observation I have made several times over the last years: At some point in pixel-size (and so, more relevant in reality "in pixel-count for a given sensor-size") there seems to be some kind of "break-even" point, where the real added resolution drops significantly / exponetially in comparison to the added physical pixels on a same-sized sensor. And while for compact point-and-shoots I "feel" this point at somewhere around 6MP, for APS-C I always "felt" it to be around 10MP, what exactly mirrors my above results: Both are aproximately 20% jumps in resolution, but 6MP->10MP gives about 15% more resolution at max, while 10MP->15MP leaves only 8% and 15->20MP will add even less resolution, I'd estimate it at ... well ... 3%!?

So this will be the next update to this some time in the future, when I manage to get my fingers on a 70D or a 7D Mark II...

 

The background

See "Megapixels: 10 vs. 15".

 

A word about supporting this site

I don’t run this site to earn money. I have a real job to earn my living with, a completely normal job. Since everything I write about here I have bought myself, for myself and with my own money from normal shops or ebay-sellers to actually use it, how much and what I am able to write about , depends on the amount of money that I can save and invest in equipment with good conscience. I share all this, because I want to, not to sell it. But when you find this helpful, maybe even as helpful as buying a magazine or book, of course you can support me, if you want. Your benefit is, that you help me being able to afford things to write about here.

You can use the “Donate” – button on the left to directly send a small amount of money (or a big amount, if you insist). You don’t need a paypal account to do so, every method is possible. If you decide to donate 99 cents, I’m thankful for it, because 10 people being as kind as you, make one new filter tested! The default currency is US $, but it works well with € or nearly any other currency, too.

But even more simple and without any cost or other disadvantage at all it is, to simply use this link to Amazon (or the one on the left) before buying anything there. For you it’s exactly the same as going there directly by typing the web-adress in your browser, you just klick this link first! It doesn’t matter, what you buy or where in the world you buy it, be it underpants, a pen, a cupboard, a lens or a Leica M9, be it in Germany, the USA, the UK or Australia: Amazon’s servers simply realize, that you came there through the link on my page and I get a small percentage of anything you buy FROM THEM. There’s absolutely no cost or other disadvantage for you, Amazon simply pays for my “advertisement” through this. I originally didn’t want to ever do any advertising personally. But then I decided to break this rule for Amazon. I’m a completely satisfied customer and buy everything from them. It’s the only shop in the world I would personally and on my private basis really rate a complete 100% in every regard. They have perfect service, even do call you back, answer emails with real, personal writing, extremely fast delivery even on Christmas-day, always perfect and completely new items, are never considerably more expensive than the very cheapest internet-sellers, have an extremely fast refund-system without being picky or having ever displeased me in any way and sell every good I have ever wanted to buy. They work on a completely different level than any retailer I have ever tried, and deliver it directly to me, without robbing me time and money to drive to the city or mall. I wouldn’t advertise them, if I wasn’t convinced, that it is OK to do so.