Canon T2i (EOS 550D): Pushing What’s Neccessary?
by Peter Zack
Photo courtesy of B&H Photo
The release of the new Canon EOS 550D (T2i Digital Rebel in the US) got me thinking. Is a Sub $800.00 18MP camera really required? What’s the upside to the shooter? Is this an advancement of the “more is better” megapixel race? I’m sure I’ll stand in the minority on this but I feel there are a few valid points to consider. I welcome your thoughts in the comment section. Before you consider these the ramblings of an old-school shooter, let me make it clear that I do welcome necessary advancements in camera features and quality, but I’m just not sure how this is a benefit to advancing the APS-C format. It sure will grab some headlines, though.
So let me start out with a few disclaimers. I’m no engineer or physicist, I have just enough of a basic understanding to get me in a little trouble discussing CMOS and CCD designs. This is not a brand-bashing article either, it’s just that Canon has offered the first 18MP camera with a street price of $799.00¹. Finally, I haven’t handled this camera. It’s introduction really made me wonder why we need an 18MP camera that seems to be tailored to the first time DSLR buyer. Following are some of the points I want you to consider when thinking about high pixel count APS-C DSLRs.
Computer Requirements
To start with, if you are moving into DSLRs for the first time, do you need 18MP, or for that matter 15MP? If you shoot RAW (and I would think most should) to get the most out of a DSLR, you’re probably looking at a computer upgrade. The file size of a RAW file with a sensor this size is about 24.5MB (5184 x 3456 pixels)². So load that file size into a program like Adobe Photoshop and if you’re at 2GB of RAM, it’s going to be really slow to load or edit anything, maybe even at 4GB. If you can upgrade the computer memory, then you have a relatively cheap fix. But if not, you’re going to want a new system very quickly. Laptop owners may be very limited with upgrade options.
Hard Drive Space
I never delete files totally; I’ll sort the poor shots from the good and store the poor ones as unused. Why? Well, my post processing skills improve on a regular basis. What I could do with a poor shot 2 years ago is very different than what I can do today. Who knows what software improvements will bring in the future? So unless it’s complete junk, I save it somewhere. 24.5MB files will fill a hard drive very fast, so you’ll need external hard drives or a new internal upgrade fairly quickly.
Memory Cards
If you have a bunch of 1 and 2GB SD cards from your P&S, well they will be tossed fairly quickly. Consider that a 1GB card will probably hold 38-40 images at full RAW size. That takes us back to the 36 negative film days. You’re going to fill that card up in 11.1 seconds at 3.6 fps chasing that bird in the backyard. One of the benefits of a digital camera is meant to be the ability to blast away if you choose to because there are no film costs. So add a bit more to the budget for some 32GB cards for that vacation trip. Of course, you can always lower the image size (by shooting JPEG), use your 1GB cards and….in the end, maybe the P&S would be have been better for the vacation.
Any or all of these issues may cost you more than just getting a new camera body.
Display Sizes
What does the buyer of this camera use it for to show off their photos? Sites like Flickr? On the computer? 4″×6″ or 5″x7″ prints with the occasional 8″×10″? Do you need 5184 x 3456 pixels for that? Nope, sites like Flickr will restrict image sizes and most monitors have between 1024 x768 to 1280×1024 pixel displays³. Web sites you might create will be less than this. You can make 18″x27″ prints with 6MP images from a DSLR without a problem.
Image Quality
That’s the huge appeal for the buyer. 18MP must be better than 15MP, or 12MP right? So why did the new full-frame Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III come out at only 21.1MP? Wouldn’t 40.5MP (keeping the same pixel density as the T2i) be the right pixel size? My basic understanding of pixel density is that the smaller the pixels on the sensor, the noise will increase.
The output read noise power is directly proportional to the vertical resolution of the imager and inversely proportional to the pixel area, resulting in a strong dependence between noise and pixel density.4
The 1Ds Mk III uses a full-frame sensor which is 864mm² vs the APS-C sensor at 413mm², and as a result the pixels are going to be roughly twice the area. Why so few pixels? Because this camera is aimed at the Pro market where good low light control and fine detail is demanded. More pixels aren’t necessarily better. To get clean images from a high megapixel APS-C camera a lot more noise processing is going to have to happen before the RAW image is written to the card. So you’re not going to have the fine detail nearly as much as the RAW image that is a less processed native image from a full-frame sensor. Pro shooters don’t want the image processed by the camera, they want that control for post processing work.
So What Are the Advantages?
- You can crop the heck out of your shots, but you need to be using top quality lenses to achieve maximum resolution.
- You can print images to sizes that we just normally don’t do (24″x36″, for example).
- Marketing for the camera companies. Not really to our benefit but to sell more cameras.
So the T2i is a stripped down 7D that retains the 18MP sensor to sell this entry-level model. For me, that just doesn’t make sense and I certainly hope the camera companies don’t go down this road together.
Cheers and Good Shooting –Peter Zack
¹ Price: Adorama and B&H
² Canon USA web site specs: Canon
³ W3Schools
4 MIT paper Pixel density
Note: Links in this article might be to one of our affiliate stores. Purchases made from our affiliates through these links will benefit Enticing the Light at no extra cost to you.
Tags: Canon, Canon Digital Rebel, Canon EOS 550D, Canon T2i, Megapixel race
Great commentary.
My biggest issue with this cam is it is WAY too close to the 7D, and better in some ways than my 50D! What?
I am getting ready for the next body upgrade, and the 50D will be my second camera. I shoot weddings and real estate. I was going to get the 7D – but this is so close (no, I’m, not suggesting this be my primary camera) – maybe I need to wait for the next model? The price difference between this and the 7D is around $1000 I think – possibly slightly more – but I don’t see that much value either way. It’s got the same sensor and processor in the end!
So, conclusion?
Canon have just completely confused their product line up. Like you said – this is more than an entry level cam.
So unless they are coming out with some killer new bodies for the rest of the range, I’ve just put off a new purchase……..
Drewe
I agree on all points.
What really needs to happen is for them to go back down to 12MP and have amazing low noise performance. The average user is shooting indoors and complaining about motion blur – they are not complaining their files are too small for a 20×30.
Maybe they are just recycling an already built sensor but at the moment, Nikon appears to be doing a better job realizing pixel quality is more important then pixel quantity.
I’m sure the reason for using this sensor is twofold: On the one hand they save on R&D and manufacturing costs by using the same sensor across all APS-C cameras, on the other, they can attract buyers at the low end by tempting them with a sensor also included at the upper end of their line.
Nikon will be announcing new cameras soon, and they may very well have a 15-18MP entry-level cam up their sleeve, so let’s wait on those comparisons
Well said, and all points raised really should be considered by people buying into larger MP cameras… esp. the file size and hardware space and what the end result will really be (4″x6″, interwebs, etc.)
on some reviews the 500D with higher pixel density that 450D was already showing _worse_ noise. I fear the 550D is gonna “outdo” the 500D on this one, and make even more useless pictures at high ISO.
All valid points everyone. I’ve been reading the forums this morning and there’s a wild diversity of opinion. One thing seems clear though. A number of 7D owners are not pleased. They like the upgrade differences between the 2 bodies but reading between the lines, I think many wonder why the 7D is at the price it’s at. Is a higher frame rate, features and the body design worth that much more? It’s surprising how many have said they are going to sell their 7D cameras. I suspect many of those buyers got a 7D for it’s video and the body is a lot more than they really needed.
It reminds me of the lens mount switch from FD. They have really confused the market for the customer base. They can’t drop the price on the 7D much either or there would be a revolt. I hope Nikon, Sony and Pentax do not get drawn into this trap and watch the sales numbers carefully in a complete sense. IE. what will happen to the other models in the line. Will they continue decent sales figures or drop off the map because this body has everyone’s interest. It will sell well, but maybe at the expense of models like the 500 and the 7D. Both might feel like either overpriced or orphans now.
I really want to see what this can do at 3200 and 6400.
Not so different than Pentax K-x; there’s a bit of outrage when it outperforms (in one aspect) the flagship K-7 that many loyal Pentaxians had just a few months prior dropped twice as many clams on. I’m sure more than a few Nikonians raised their eyebrows at just how much D300 and D90 DNA filtered down into D5000.
What is there about this camera that would make someone sell their 7D? Or are they thinking about selling their 7D, buying a 550D and still having a little cash left in their pocket?
Andrew, of course there’s always going to be advances that overlap when a new model comes out. That will always happen to some degree. It’s up to the manufacturer to choose carefully how many upgrades they put in a lower end model that is released into the line and might impact the upper model(s).
What I’ve seen on various forums today is that I think some (probably a vocal minority) bought more camera then they really needed in a 7D and now are thinking they could have used the extra $1000 to buy other gear. Certainly any serious shooter would still take the 7D over this model for a number of reasons.
Another point not brought up in the article is Lenses. If the first time buyer is probably thinking the kit lens is just fine when most likely it does not have the sharpness to resolve what the sensor can produce. So they loose the benefit of the 18MP. There’s a new expense they didn’t consider. Buying L glass for starter camera.
But again I want to be clear, I’m not picking on Canon. They make great gear and I applaud any brand that continues to advance the category. They just happen to be the first to break the $1000 price with a DSLR over 15MP.
My 2 main points are:
1) is the first time shooter prepared for the possible expenses that may come with file sizes from a sensor this size?
2) Is a low priced , high MP body really advancing the the line in a logical way? Could that R&D been better invested in better ISO handling in a lower MP sensor or some other wanted features to the first time shooter or advanced amateur?
If this 550D is like the 7D I suspect we’ll see that they’ll get their cake and get to eat it too when it comes to high ISO handling–more pixels, and state-of-the-art noise handling. I suspect that while theoretically lower pixel density could be a road to improved performance, the R&D is being focused on squeezing more out of high-density sensors instead. This may not be a bad approach in the big picture for chip & camera makers because they can use these advances in their smaller sensors as well–rather than focusing only on improving lower density sensors that don’t have nearly as many applications/units sold.
I think my reaction to this T2i/550D has been mostly ho-hum…another incremental improvement over the model that preceded it. Some people are going to wish they waited for some reason or other. If a K-7 Super is announced within the next couple of months I’m probably going to feel some pangs of regret too, knowing that I’m stuck with something that I’m only 90% thrilled about instead of 95%, wondering if I should have waited.
You make some good points though…I actually think 14mp (K20D/K-7) is a lot to deal with. It did make a difference in that the 2GB SD cards I’ve been so happy with on *ist DS2 (6mp) and K10D (10mp) have started to feel a little cramped…and most certainly will as I start to try video. And we continue to pay for it when downloading images and storing them on the PC. Cameras struggle to handle the additional throughput for continuous shooting as well as for increasing amounts of other onboard processing for things like distortion correction and dynamic range optimizations.
I agree that for an entry level camera, 18MP may be overkill. The only time I’ve had an image printed at 24″x36″ was a movie poster for a friends’ Indie feature. That wasn’t a single image though. It was a multilayer composition made from several smaller images.
as for anything larger, I had a computer generated logo printed out, but that’s a different thing all together. The largest print I can personally see using is an 8X10, with the possibility of a 15×20. But for most consumers, there is no need for such high resolution.
Besides, like someone said earlier. The sensor can only resolve what the lens is capable of (paraphrased of course), and though the kit lenses aren’t bad, they are a far cry from the L-Series lenses that Canon sells.
For professional journalism and art, yes. For Mom & Pop vacations? No. Unless you get a shot of that UFO that’s been buzzing around. Then you might need the extra resolution to crop.
I’ve been shooting a Rebel professionally since the XTi’s release.
I don’t care about MP’s…15 vs 18 is negligible.
I’m going to get this camera because of the Video upgrades, not the still upgrades.
an old instructor of mine used to say…
“if you can win the race in a Pinto… why buy the Ferrari?”