Spectators: "Ah! 12.7 Megapixels!"

[Ger Bee]

That’s what I’m greeted with from enthusiastic spectators, eager to show their photo equipment recognition knowledge.

Sadly, at many sporting events, they are disappointed when I point pout it’s the 1D, 4.1MBs.

Ha ha, they don’t believe you anyway! Neither do many believe that I use a 350D as well ~ where appropriate.

[Michael Tapes]

I would much rather see a 350D in the hands of a real phpotographer, than a 1DsMkII in the hands of a wanna be :>)

[Will_Perlis]

I just make up a number at random. If someone says "No, the specs say..." I tell them I've modified the sensor chip. Either they believe me or think I'm an idiot depending on their own knowledge but they do go away.

[Daniel Harrison]

He He, Yes. I have a 1D and people see this big honking piece of metal with a huge lens hagning off the end and they are impressed. Then they ask how many MP... then they are bewildered. 4 you only have FOUR!!! :-)

I am going to get a 350D as a second body but out of interest when you compare image quality what are your impressions
Thanks!

[Ger Bee]

The actual image quality is pretty good from the 350D. I bought it for its superior tungsten balance for recital concert photography where quietness is important.

I did a few RAW night-time scenes and IMO the image quality is better than a similar shot I have from the 1DMKII ~ but I have not done any side by side testing.

Where the 350D is weak IMO is in people photography and especially with flash, it goes all too digital too quickly and shows its lack of dynamic range in JPEG recording.

I can do a nice enough job on sunny days with people and its own flash as fill and it’s a topper with available light / window style lighting indoors. I can’t use it for event style photography and as I don’t have to, have not explored how to get this aspect right.

Originally Posted by Daniel Harrison

I am going to get a 350D as a second body but out of interest when you compare image quality what are your impressions
Thanks!

[Daniel Harrison]

Thanks, interesting thoughts. I think I will get one :-)
Daniel

[Don Lashier]

> Then they ask how many MP...

I'm still shooting a 1D also and when they ask this question I take the opportunity to educate them about how it's the quality of the pixels not the quantity. Frankly 4.1 quality mps are more than enough for the work I do aside from the occasional desire to crop severely, and I don't really look forward to the workflow and storage demands of tripling the mps for little or no benefit. About the only thing that tempts me to upgrade is improved high ISO performance.

- DL

[Daniel Harrison]

Your right about 4mp - it does go a long way for most work. Plenty of res for your average wedding. But I agree, I would like better high ISO performance. But looking back on my work it is not to bad, ISO 800 is quite good.