«

In the consumer market uninformed consumers will automatically assume higher
MP = better. And Sony Marketing knows this so Images will get noiser and MP
will increase but consumers will keep lining up since most snapshots are
never enlarged past 4x6 anyways.

Hugo Drax wrote:

> In the consumer market uninformed consumers will automatically assume
> higher MP = better. And Sony Marketing knows this so Images will get
> noiser and MP will increase but consumers will keep lining up since most
> snapshots are never enlarged past 4x6 anyways.

Hmmm... Well, it seems to me that what I often need is some small portion of
a larger image. But that noise thing, now that could be a problem.

I guess I am not an ordinary consumer then, as I almost never print out
digital images that small. Mostly 8 x 10, and now I have a large format
printer.

'course, for snapshot use I just use my film camera.

Hugo Drax wrote:
>
> In the consumer market uninformed consumers will automatically assume higher
> MP = better. And Sony Marketing knows this so Images will get noiser and MP
> will increase but consumers will keep lining up since most snapshots are
> never enlarged past 4x6 anyways.

--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota

webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer

In article <btqpa0$acjta$>,
"Hugo Drax" <> wrote:

> In the consumer market uninformed consumers will automatically assume higher
> MP = better. And Sony Marketing knows this so Images will get noiser and MP
> will increase but consumers will keep lining up since most snapshots are
> never enlarged past 4x6 anyways.
>

Sony doesn't produce high-end consumer equipment so lets leave them out
of this.

For now, the pixel count is significant. For the professional, they
provide the sharpness required for large prints. For the photo
hobbyist, they help recover a poor quality photo so it's at least good
for online viewing.

There are still many factors to consider, though. I think most digicams
have too much shutter lag to be useful. I was getting autofocus lag
yesterday on my Canon 300D when I was photographing a party in the dark.
It brought back bad memories of digicams that always lagged like that.

"Kevin McMurtrie" <> wrote in message
news:mcmurtri-...
> In article <btqpa0$acjta$>,
> "Hugo Drax" <> wrote:
>
> > In the consumer market uninformed consumers will automatically assume
higher
> > MP = better. And Sony Marketing knows this so Images will get noiser and
MP
> > will increase but consumers will keep lining up since most snapshots are
> > never enlarged past 4x6 anyways.
> >
>
> Sony doesn't produce high-end consumer equipment so lets leave them out
> of this.
>
> For now, the pixel count is significant. For the professional, they
> provide the sharpness required for large prints. For the photo
> hobbyist, they help recover a poor quality photo so it's at least good
> for online viewing.
>
> There are still many factors to consider, though. I think most digicams
> have too much shutter lag to be useful. I was getting autofocus lag
> yesterday on my Canon 300D when I was photographing a party in the dark.
> It brought back bad memories of digicams that always lagged like that.

I am not sure what glass you used but a 1.4 50mm or L primes focus in low
light quick.

"Kevin McMurtrie" <> wrote in message
news:mcmurtri-...
> In article <btqpa0$acjta$>,
> "Hugo Drax" <> wrote:
>
> > In the consumer market uninformed consumers will automatically assume
higher
> > MP = better. And Sony Marketing knows this so Images will get noiser and
MP
> > will increase but consumers will keep lining up since most snapshots are
> > never enlarged past 4x6 anyways.
> >
>
> Sony doesn't produce high-end consumer equipment so lets leave them out
> of this.
>
> For now, the pixel count is significant. For the professional, they
> provide the sharpness required for large prints. For the photo
> hobbyist, they help recover a poor quality photo so it's at least good
> for online viewing.

but I prefer big sensor. I shoot 1600.

I have a hunch that an 8MP image down-sampled to 5-6 MP may be better
that native 5-6 MP.

I'm getting some good results with a 2MP---including a lot of
stitching.

6.3MP seems fantastic to me.

8X10 at 300 ppi is 2400 X 3000 = 7.2 MP (6 + is "close enough". I
want the price of this to come down much more than I want more MP.

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:10:54 -0500, "Hugo Drax" <>
wrote:

>In the consumer market uninformed consumers will automatically assume higher
>MP = better. And Sony Marketing knows this so Images will get noiser and MP
>will increase but consumers will keep lining up since most snapshots are
>never enlarged past 4x6 anyways.
>

**************************
Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 20:26:35 -0800, Mark Herring
<> wrote:

>I have a hunch that an 8MP image down-sampled to 5-6 MP may be better
>that native 5-6 MP.
I've seen a statement to this effect in a recent review of the Fuji
Finepix S5000.

Phil