«

I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
And you?

(Ah,excuse me...Copiryght by phil askey)

<> wrote in message
news: oups.com...

> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
> And you?
>
> (Ah,excuse me...Copiryght by phil askey)

4.1

wrote:
> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
> And you?
>
> (Ah,excuse me...Copiryght by phil askey)

5,984,187 no more and no less.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

<> schreef in bericht
news: oups.com...
>
>
> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
> And you?
>
> (Ah,excuse me...Copiryght by phil askey)
>

I've got 8, and nothing to be desired of (in terms of Mp)

Rutger


--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/

If it was up to me 15 to 20MP. Moderate amount of noise would be fine. Makes
the images look more real and film like.

R


<> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
>
>
> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
> And you?
>
> (Ah,excuse me...Copiryght by phil askey)
>

> wrote:
> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
> And you?

Two more megapixels than the guy next to me and I'm happy ...

"Bill Hilton" <> wrote:
>> wrote:
>> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
>> And you?
>
> Two more megapixels than the guy next to me and I'm happy ...

That only works at the 4MP level.

You need about a 25% increase in linear resolution to make a noticeable
difference; for example, I can't tell the difference between 5D (12.5MP) and
1Dsmk2 (16MP) prints. Next to each other on the screen at 100%, the 12%
increase in linear resolution is noticeable, but it doesn't translate into
noticeably better textures or detail in prints. (I was irritated that Canon
shortchanged the cheapskate 5D users and didn't give us the same sensor they
used in the 1Dsmk2, so I spent a lot of time with my nose on the prints.)

David J. Littleboy
Who never misses a chance to write something nerdy in response to light
humor in
Tokyo, Japan

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:38:29 GMT, Joseph Meehan wrote:

>> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
>> And you?
> . . .
> 5,984,187 no more and no less.

Oh my. I hope that your camera is one that can map out bad pixels
if and when they eventually appear. True pixel purists wouldn't
even tolerate that operation.

wrote:

>
> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
> And you?
>
> (Ah,excuse me...Copiryght by phil askey)
>

200 MP

(now experimenting with changing from scanned 4x5
film to digital mosaics).

Roger
http://www.clarkvision.com

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:28:26 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" <> wrote:

> wrote:
>
>>
>> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
>> And you?
>>
>> (Ah,excuse me...Copiryght by phil askey)
>>
>
>200 MP
>
>(now experimenting with changing from scanned 4x5
>film to digital mosaics).


I love my 10D but you know, there's nothing like 100
million pixels from scanned 4x5" film.

This doesn't diminish my lust for a Canon 5D.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com