«

Sensor size and design should dictate this. Noise levels at 400 ISO
should be capped. A crummy 1/1.8 sensor should NOT be allowed to have
more than 5 megapixels and other sensors should be capped in accordance
with a minimum pixel size. Pixels should not be allowed to drop below
4 microns because of the noise, dymanic range and other issues that
effect smaller pixels. Special sensors (like those made by Fuji) would
be regulated on a case by case basis. Of course, this will hurt the
camera phone market, but who really cares about those abominatons?
Years ago, the Feds regulated the audio market to prevent false
advertising when it came to power and now it's the camera market's turn!

Rich wrote:
> Sensor size and design should dictate this. Noise levels at 400 ISO
> should be capped. A crummy 1/1.8 sensor should NOT be allowed to have
> more than 5 megapixels and other sensors should be capped in accordance
> with a minimum pixel size. Pixels should not be allowed to drop below
> 4 microns because of the noise, dymanic range and other issues that
> effect smaller pixels. Special sensors (like those made by Fuji) would
> be regulated on a case by case basis. Of course, this will hurt the
> camera phone market, but who really cares about those abominatons?
> Years ago, the Feds regulated the audio market to prevent false
> advertising when it came to power and now it's the camera market's turn!

God save us from the people who want to save us.

Scott

"Rich" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
> Sensor size and design should dictate this. Noise levels at 400 ISO
> should be capped. A crummy 1/1.8 sensor should NOT be allowed to have
> more than 5 megapixels and other sensors should be capped in accordance
> with a minimum pixel size. Pixels should not be allowed to drop below
> 4 microns because of the noise, dymanic range and other issues that
> effect smaller pixels. Special sensors (like those made by Fuji) would
> be regulated on a case by case basis. Of course, this will hurt the
> camera phone market, but who really cares about those abominatons?
> Years ago, the Feds regulated the audio market to prevent false
> advertising when it came to power and now it's the camera market's turn!
>

Sounds like a good idea, exactly the same problem too if you ask me. Camera
manufacturers should be ashamed of themselves.

Rich wrote:
> Sensor size and design should dictate this. Noise levels at 400 ISO
> should be capped. A crummy 1/1.8 sensor should NOT be allowed to have
> more than 5 megapixels and other sensors should be capped in accordance
> with a minimum pixel size.

I agree with you. But I think the proper solution is for camera
manufacturers to start advertising, educating, and promoting sensor
sizes.

"Rich" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
> Sensor size and design should dictate this. Noise levels at 400 ISO
> should be capped. A crummy 1/1.8 sensor should NOT be allowed to have
> more than 5 megapixels and other sensors should be capped in accordance
> with a minimum pixel size. Pixels should not be allowed to drop below
> 4 microns because of the noise, dymanic range and other issues that
> effect smaller pixels. Special sensors (like those made by Fuji) would
> be regulated on a case by case basis. Of course, this will hurt the
> camera phone market, but who really cares about those abominatons?
> Years ago, the Feds regulated the audio market to prevent false
> advertising when it came to power and now it's the camera market's turn!
>
Rich,
Better let the consumers decide whether they buy or not.
Big Brother has its hands into too many things as it is. Take care,
Marcel

Who's going to save us from people who think there's a God who saves us?

"Scott W" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
>
> Rich wrote:
>> Sensor size and design should dictate this. Noise levels at 400 ISO
>> should be capped. A crummy 1/1.8 sensor should NOT be allowed to have
>> more than 5 megapixels and other sensors should be capped in accordance
>> with a minimum pixel size. Pixels should not be allowed to drop below
>> 4 microns because of the noise, dymanic range and other issues that
>> effect smaller pixels. Special sensors (like those made by Fuji) would
>> be regulated on a case by case basis. Of course, this will hurt the
>> camera phone market, but who really cares about those abominatons?
>> Years ago, the Feds regulated the audio market to prevent false
>> advertising when it came to power and now it's the camera market's turn!
>
> God save us from the people who want to save us.
>
> Scott
>

Rich wrote:
> Sensor size and design should dictate this. Noise levels at 400 ISO
> should be capped. A crummy 1/1.8 sensor should NOT be allowed to
> have more than 5 megapixels and other sensors should be capped in
> accordance with a minimum pixel size. Pixels should not be allowed
> to drop below 4 microns because of the noise, dymanic range and other
> issues that effect smaller pixels. Special sensors (like those made
> by Fuji) would be regulated on a case by case basis. Of course, this
> will hurt the camera phone market, but who really cares about those
> abominatons? Years ago, the Feds regulated the audio market to
> prevent false advertising when it came to power and now it's the
> camera market's turn!
>
Right! Yet another law to protect stupid people. Rich why not also have
the Feds mandate that only metal shall be used in cameras, in your case
even the clear bits are to be made of metal.

Besides your Feds are Canadians, so what Feds should regulate this.
Better idea let have the Government regulate photography with licences,
if you don't pass the test you won't get your licence.

Am I the only one who saw the smiley at the end of the title? Wasn't Rich
kidding?

"Rich" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
> Sensor size and design should dictate this. Noise levels at 400 ISO
> should be capped. A crummy 1/1.8 sensor should NOT be allowed to have
> more than 5 megapixels and other sensors should be capped in accordance
> with a minimum pixel size. Pixels should not be allowed to drop below
> 4 microns because of the noise, dymanic range and other issues that
> effect smaller pixels. Special sensors (like those made by Fuji) would
> be regulated on a case by case basis. Of course, this will hurt the
> camera phone market, but who really cares about those abominatons?
> Years ago, the Feds regulated the audio market to prevent false
> advertising when it came to power and now it's the camera market's turn!
>

"Not Disclosed" <> wrote in message
news:45449bfe$0$27539$. com...
> Rich wrote:
>> Sensor size and design should dictate this. Noise levels at 400 ISO
>> should be capped. A crummy 1/1.8 sensor should NOT be allowed to
>> have more than 5 megapixels and other sensors should be capped in
>> accordance with a minimum pixel size. Pixels should not be allowed
>> to drop below 4 microns because of the noise, dymanic range and other
>> issues that effect smaller pixels. Special sensors (like those made
>> by Fuji) would be regulated on a case by case basis. Of course, this
>> will hurt the camera phone market, but who really cares about those
>> abominatons? Years ago, the Feds regulated the audio market to
>> prevent false advertising when it came to power and now it's the
>> camera market's turn!
>>
> Right! Yet another law to protect stupid people. Rich why not also
> have the Feds mandate that only metal shall be used in cameras, in
> your case even the clear bits are to be made of metal.
>
> Besides your Feds are Canadians, so what Feds should regulate this.
> Better idea let have the Government regulate photography with
> licences, if you don't pass the test you won't get your licence.
>
>
>

Hey, stop that -- OUR FEDS (US) do NOT need any ideas!!
They come up with enough on their own thank you very much.

mikey

Kinon O'cann wrote:
> Am I the only one who saw the smiley at the end of the title? Wasn't Rich
> kidding?
>

Kidding, yes. Kind of suggesting sensibility for camera makers.
Imagine if instead of promoting "more" of something, they did their
best to promote quality?