You are absolutely correct Ray. Your 40D has the most detail of any camera out there today, and with the wealth of adjustability in raw converters you can replicate the look from any other sensor on color and tonal range, so you are already at the pinnacle of digital technology. Heck, you are probably so good at using them, you've figured out how to add several stops of DR and manufacture wider color gamuts than the 40D ships with! So as soon as everybody else wises up and figures these techniques out, the sales of pro-sumer DSLR's will skyrocket --- and MF manufacturers will be out of business because there is clearly no longer a reason for any of us to shoot with them! Guess it's time to unload all my MF gear before it's worthless.
Heading out to buy a 40D and learn these new processing techniques...
Aren't you falling into the trap of 'mine is better (bigger) than yours'?
I didn't buy a 40D as a result of falling for all that nonsense about it having smoother tonality because of its 14 bit A/D converter and better quality shadows. I'm a pragmatic sort of guy. I bought the 40D because I came across a surprisingly good bargain price offer in Bangkok and because I thought the LiveView feature and fast frame rate of 6.5 per second would be useful, and because my 5D was in for repair at the time leaving me with just the 20D which I'd taken along as back-up on that trip. (I'll also admit to a little bit of technology lust coming into the equation ).
As it's turned out, the LiveView feature has become a headache (as well as educational) because it makes it so easy to pick up the slightest degree of misfocussing and has caused me to realise what a problem accurate focussing can be when lenses are used at wide apertures.
Surely you realise that I don't need to be convinced that bigger sensors with more pixels (or even an equal number of pixels) are better at least in some respects.
What I'd like to know is simply 'how much better?' and how significant is such improvement after the best processing practices have been applied to all images being compared, and what role does choice of lens and aperture have.
For example, if differences in detail are actually
marginal, between say a 1Ds3 and P25, but in demonstrating such differences both cameras are used with their respective lenses at F16, then such small differences will be augmented to a degree where perhaps they appear significant.
I know that you know that most good lenses perform marginally better (sharper)at F11 than at F16 (and at F8 than at F11) due to less diffraction. However, such differences in resolution, accutance etc. might well be insignificant by themsleves. But add
factors and you get something which may be regarded as significant.