Nikon falling behind in the entry level

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Feb 14, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Going to be tough for them to address this, seeing as they have
    nothing above 12 megapixels until you hit $8000. The D90 is long in
    the tooth, but how do you bring out something with 15-20 megapixels
    when your pro bodies don't?

    http://www.dpreview.com/previews/CanonEOS550D/
     
    RichA, Feb 14, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Feb 13, 10:38 pm, John Navas <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:08:06 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    > wrote in
    > <>:
    >
    > >Going to be tough for them to address this, seeing as they have
    > >nothing above 12 megapixels until you hit $8000.  The D90 is long in
    > >the tooth, but how do you bring out something with 15-20 megapixels
    > >when your pro bodies don't?

    >
    > >http://www.dpreview.com/previews/CanonEOS550D/

    >
    > Assumes more megapixels matter.  They don't.
    >
    > --


    Sure they do. If they didn't, we'd be back at 1.3 megapixels.
     
    RichA, Feb 14, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Bill T. Guest

    On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:38:59 -0800, John Navas <>
    wrote:

    >On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:08:06 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    >wrote in
    ><>:
    >
    >>Going to be tough for them to address this, seeing as they have
    >>nothing above 12 megapixels until you hit $8000. The D90 is long in
    >>the tooth, but how do you bring out something with 15-20 megapixels
    >>when your pro bodies don't?
    >>
    >>http://www.dpreview.com/previews/CanonEOS550D/

    >
    >Assumes more megapixels matter. They don't.


    Let him have his fantasy. More megapixels is the only area where a DSLR can
    barely improve, now that many P&S cameras are exceeding DSLR capabilities
    in all other ways.
     
    Bill T., Feb 14, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Feb 13, 11:31 pm, Bill T. <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:38:59 -0800, John Navas <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:08:06 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    > >wrote in
    > ><>:

    >
    > >>Going to be tough for them to address this, seeing as they have
    > >>nothing above 12 megapixels until you hit $8000.  The D90 is long in
    > >>the tooth, but how do you bring out something with 15-20 megapixels
    > >>when your pro bodies don't?

    >
    > >>http://www.dpreview.com/previews/CanonEOS550D/

    >
    > >Assumes more megapixels matter.  They don't.

    >
    > Let him have his fantasy. More megapixels is the only area where a DSLR can
    > barely improve, now that many P&S cameras are exceeding DSLR capabilities
    > in all other ways.


    Name true horror; a p&s at 1600 ISO.
     
    RichA, Feb 14, 2010
    #4
  5. RichA

    Bill T. Guest

    On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 22:00:04 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >On Feb 13, 11:31 pm, Bill T. <> wrote:
    >> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:38:59 -0800, John Navas <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:08:06 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    >> >wrote in
    >> ><>:

    >>
    >> >>Going to be tough for them to address this, seeing as they have
    >> >>nothing above 12 megapixels until you hit $8000.  The D90 is long in
    >> >>the tooth, but how do you bring out something with 15-20 megapixels
    >> >>when your pro bodies don't?

    >>
    >> >>http://www.dpreview.com/previews/CanonEOS550D/

    >>
    >> >Assumes more megapixels matter.  They don't.

    >>
    >> Let him have his fantasy. More megapixels is the only area where a DSLR can
    >> barely improve, now that many P&S cameras are exceeding DSLR capabilities
    >> in all other ways.

    >
    >Name true horror; a p&s at 1600 ISO.


    Why do you need ISO1600 when you can have lenses at f/2.4-f/3.5 aperture
    at focal lengths over 550mm on a P&S camera? The whole camera for less
    price than a fixed focal-length DSLR lens alone. That's 2-3 EV stops more
    aperture than any lenses at those focal-lengths for any DSLR on earth. So
    only ISO 200-400 is needed for the same images where ISO1600-3200 would be
    required on a DSLR. Some P&S cameras are exceptionally clean at ISOs of 200
    and 400.

    With the new back-lit CMOS sensors coming on the scene, and only being
    implemented in P&S cameras, there's a good chance that even the tiny
    sensors will have clean images of ISO1600 and more.

    Here's test images from a Fuji Finepix F30 P&S 1/1.7" sensor camera at
    ISO800. This is without the new back-lit CMOS sensors in this year's
    cameras.

    <http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmF30/Samples/crops/Fuji_F30_ISO800_noND-crops.jpg>

    Or this Fuji Finepix F31d at ISO800.

    <http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmF31fd/Samples/crops/Fuji_F31fd_ISO800-crops.jpg>

    In all my years of professional photography I've never needed ISOs above
    200, 400 rarely. Are you going to tell us that you're that lame of a lowly
    snapshooter where you need that much of an ISO crutch? What a pity.

    Then too with the slapping mirror and shutter in all DSLR cameras which
    causes camera-shake at any shutter speed, with any lens, then P&S cameras
    can even produce sharper images when hand-held. Not one DSLR can attain
    full resolution with any lens at any shutter speed due to mirror and
    shutter slap. Unless you use mirror lock-up and shutter-delay on a hefty
    tripod. Even then you are limited by shutter-slap. You have to leave the
    shutter open and then expose your subject in a totally dark room with an
    off-camera flash in order to attain a situation with zero camera shake from
    the DSLR's own last-century mechanical contraptions. This crippling
    limitation is true for each and every DSLR on earth and will never change
    until they do away with both the mirror and focal-plane shutter. You know,
    just like this century's designs that every P&S camera on earth already has
    for more than a decade now.

    Keep reaching for excuses, you ignorant troll. And every time that you do
    I'll be here to post proof in opposition to all your inexperienced
    opinions, that you are just that, nothing but an ignorant and inexperienced
    troll. In fact I quite like it when you spew your ignorance and examples of
    inexperience. It gives me yet another chance to show the world how much
    better that P&S cameras are today compared to last-century's lame and
    crippled DSLR designs.
     
    Bill T., Feb 14, 2010
    #5
  6. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Feb 14, 2:55 am, Bill T. <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 22:00:04 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Feb 13, 11:31 pm, Bill T. <> wrote:
    > >> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:38:59 -0800, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup..com>
    > >> wrote:

    >
    > >> >On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:08:06 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    > >> >wrote in
    > >> ><>:

    >
    > >> >>Going to be tough for them to address this, seeing as they have
    > >> >>nothing above 12 megapixels until you hit $8000.  The D90 is long in
    > >> >>the tooth, but how do you bring out something with 15-20 megapixels
    > >> >>when your pro bodies don't?

    >
    > >> >>http://www.dpreview.com/previews/CanonEOS550D/

    >
    > >> >Assumes more megapixels matter.  They don't.

    >
    > >> Let him have his fantasy. More megapixels is the only area where a DSLR can
    > >> barely improve, now that many P&S cameras are exceeding DSLR capabilities
    > >> in all other ways.

    >
    > >Name true horror;  a p&s at 1600 ISO.

    >
    > Why do you need ISO1600  when you can have lenses at f/2.4-f/3.5 aperture
    > at focal lengths over 550mm on a P&S camera? The whole camera for less
    > price than a fixed focal-length DSLR lens alone. That's 2-3 EV stops more
    > aperture than any lenses at those focal-lengths for any DSLR on earth. So
    > only ISO 200-400 is needed for the same images where ISO1600-3200 would be
    > required on a DSLR. Some P&S cameras are exceptionally clean at ISOs of 200
    > and 400.
    >
    > With the new back-lit CMOS sensors coming on the scene, and only being
    > implemented in P&S cameras, there's a good chance that even the tiny
    > sensors will have clean images of ISO1600 and more.
    >
    > Here's test images from a Fuji Finepix F30 P&S 1/1.7" sensor camera at
    > ISO800. This is without the new back-lit CMOS sensors in this year's
    > cameras.
    >
    > <http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmF30/Samples/crops/Fuji_F30_...>
    >
    > Or this Fuji Finepix F31d at ISO800.
    >
    > <http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmF31fd/Samples/crops/Fuji_F3...>
    >


    It's ugly. Watery with NR and washed out. Why pick a P&S that is
    something like 5 years old? Surely there are better ones now?
     
    RichA, Feb 14, 2010
    #6
  7. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Bill T. <> wrote:
    >On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 22:00:04 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Feb 13, 11:31 pm, Bill T. <> wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:38:59 -0800, John Navas <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> >On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:08:06 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    >>> >wrote in
    >>> ><>:
    >>>
    >>> >>Going to be tough for them to address this, seeing as they have
    >>> >>nothing above 12 megapixels until you hit $8000.  The D90 is long in
    >>> >>the tooth, but how do you bring out something with 15-20 megapixels
    >>> >>when your pro bodies don't?
    >>>
    >>> >>http://www.dpreview.com/previews/CanonEOS550D/
    >>>
    >>> >Assumes more megapixels matter.  They don't.
    >>>
    >>> Let him have his fantasy. More megapixels is the only area where a DSLR can
    >>> barely improve, now that many P&S cameras are exceeding DSLR capabilities
    >>> in all other ways.

    >>
    >>Name true horror; a p&s at 1600 ISO.

    >
    >Why do you need ISO1600 when you can have lenses at f/2.4-f/3.5 aperture


    Go away, asshole troll. Nobody believes your lies.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 14, 2010
    #7
  8. RichA

    Bill T. Guest

    On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 00:21:19 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >On Feb 14, 2:55 am, Bill T. <> wrote:
    >> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 22:00:04 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> >On Feb 13, 11:31 pm, Bill T. <> wrote:
    >> >> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:38:59 -0800, John Navas <>
    >> >> wrote:

    >>
    >> >> >On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:08:06 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    >> >> >wrote in
    >> >> ><>:

    >>
    >> >> >>Going to be tough for them to address this, seeing as they have
    >> >> >>nothing above 12 megapixels until you hit $8000.  The D90 is long in
    >> >> >>the tooth, but how do you bring out something with 15-20 megapixels
    >> >> >>when your pro bodies don't?

    >>
    >> >> >>http://www.dpreview.com/previews/CanonEOS550D/

    >>
    >> >> >Assumes more megapixels matter.  They don't.

    >>
    >> >> Let him have his fantasy. More megapixels is the only area where a DSLR can
    >> >> barely improve, now that many P&S cameras are exceeding DSLR capabilities
    >> >> in all other ways.

    >>
    >> >Name true horror;  a p&s at 1600 ISO.

    >>
    >> Why do you need ISO1600  when you can have lenses at f/2.4-f/3.5 aperture
    >> at focal lengths over 550mm on a P&S camera? The whole camera for less
    >> price than a fixed focal-length DSLR lens alone. That's 2-3 EV stops more
    >> aperture than any lenses at those focal-lengths for any DSLR on earth. So
    >> only ISO 200-400 is needed for the same images where ISO1600-3200 would be
    >> required on a DSLR. Some P&S cameras are exceptionally clean at ISOs of 200
    >> and 400.
    >>
    >> With the new back-lit CMOS sensors coming on the scene, and only being
    >> implemented in P&S cameras, there's a good chance that even the tiny
    >> sensors will have clean images of ISO1600 and more.
    >>
    >> Here's test images from a Fuji Finepix F30 P&S 1/1.7" sensor camera at
    >> ISO800. This is without the new back-lit CMOS sensors in this year's
    >> cameras.
    >>
    >> <http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmF30/Samples/crops/Fuji_F30_...>


    Why do you feel the need to truncate that link? Embarrassed? Insecure?
    Well, then how about the page it came from where it shows that camera
    beating a Nikon DSLR in image quality and noise performance.

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf30/page14.asp

    Feel better now?

    P&S cameras have been beating DSLRs for over 8 years now. All the way back
    to 2002 you can find P&S cameras that easily beat the image quality from
    the same year's DSLRs. Haven't you been paying attention to the test
    results?

    >>
    >> Or this Fuji Finepix F31d at ISO800.
    >>
    >> <http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmF31fd/Samples/crops/Fuji_F3...>
    >>


    Why do you feel the need to truncate that link? Embarrassed? Insecure?

    >
    >It's ugly. Watery with NR and washed out. Why pick a P&S that is
    >something like 5 years old? Surely there are better ones now?


    Everyone, except you apparently, already knows that in the world of
    consumer electronics that newer is not always better. If that were not
    true, then a P&S camera couldn't easily beat the image quality of this
    year's DSLRs.

    <http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/>

    Here's another.

    <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml>

    And here's one where P&S camera even rival a medium-format Hasselblad up to
    and perhaps even higher than 13"x19" print sizes. The fun part is that the
    P&S camera is only resting on top of the Hasselblad and triggered by hand.
    The Hasselblad had to be securely mounted on a tripod and a remote shutter
    release used, and still it couldn't beat the image-quality from the P&S
    camera.

    <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml>

    Thanks again for giving me reason to post these and make you look like a
    fool troll again.
     
    Bill T., Feb 14, 2010
    #8
  9. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Bill T. <> wrote:
    >On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 00:21:19 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Feb 14, 2:55 am, Bill T. <> wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 22:00:04 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> >On Feb 13, 11:31 pm, Bill T. <> wrote:
    >>> >> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:38:59 -0800, John Navas <>
    >>> >> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> >> >On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:08:06 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    >>> >> >wrote in
    >>> >> ><>:
    >>>
    >>> >> >>Going to be tough for them to address this, seeing as they have
    >>> >> >>nothing above 12 megapixels until you hit $8000.  The D90 is long in
    >>> >> >>the tooth, but how do you bring out something with 15-20 megapixels
    >>> >> >>when your pro bodies don't?
    >>>
    >>> >> >>http://www.dpreview.com/previews/CanonEOS550D/
    >>>
    >>> >> >Assumes more megapixels matter.  They don't.
    >>>
    >>> >> Let him have his fantasy. More megapixels is the only area where a DSLR can
    >>> >> barely improve, now that many P&S cameras are exceeding DSLR capabilities
    >>> >> in all other ways.
    >>>
    >>> >Name true horror;  a p&s at 1600 ISO.
    >>>
    >>> Why do you need ISO1600  when you can have lenses at f/2.4-f/3.5 aperture
    >>> at focal lengths over 550mm on a P&S camera? The whole camera for less
    >>> price than a fixed focal-length DSLR lens alone. That's 2-3 EV stops more
    >>> aperture than any lenses at those focal-lengths for any DSLR on earth. So
    >>> only ISO 200-400 is needed for the same images where ISO1600-3200 would be
    >>> required on a DSLR. Some P&S cameras are exceptionally clean at ISOs of 200
    >>> and 400.
    >>>
    >>> With the new back-lit CMOS sensors coming on the scene, and only being
    >>> implemented in P&S cameras, there's a good chance that even the tiny
    >>> sensors will have clean images of ISO1600 and more.
    >>>
    >>> Here's test images from a Fuji Finepix F30 P&S 1/1.7" sensor camera at
    >>> ISO800. This is without the new back-lit CMOS sensors in this year's
    >>> cameras.
    >>>
    >>> <http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmF30/Samples/crops/Fuji_F30_...>

    >
    >Why do you feel


    Go away, asshole troll.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 14, 2010
    #9
  10. On Feb 14, 4:10 am, RichA <> wrote:
    > On Feb 13, 10:38 pm, John Navas <> wrote:
    >
    > > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:08:06 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    > > wrote in
    > > <>:

    >
    > > >Going to be tough for them to address this, seeing as they have
    > > >nothing above 12 megapixels until you hit $8000.  The D90 is long in
    > > >the tooth, but how do you bring out something with 15-20 megapixels
    > > >when your pro bodies don't?

    >
    > > >http://www.dpreview.com/previews/CanonEOS550D/

    >
    > > Assumes more megapixels matter.  They don't.

    >
    > > --

    >
    > Sure they do.  If they didn't, we'd be back at 1.3 megapixels.


    I can live with 6.

    DanP
     
    Sebnem Kurt Petre, Feb 14, 2010
    #10
  11. RichA

    D.J. Guest

    On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:33:15 -0500, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >
    >If all you do is send photos by e-mail and setup large online "photo
    >galleries", then 2 Mpix is sufficient. If all you do is print 6x4 and
    >the odd 8x10, then 6 Mpix is sufficient.


    Wow, are you ever a moron. And you think you have the expertise to hand out
    camera and photography advice?

    It's not a matter of pixels, it's a matter of subject.

    It will _ALWAYS_ depend on the subject rather than the number of pixels.
    Some images from a 0.7 megapixel camera can withstand being enlarged to
    13"x19". Some images from a 2.1 megapixel camera can withstand being
    enlarged to 3x5 ft and larger.

    Some ... no, let's correct that ... _most_ images from _all_ cameras aren't
    worth printing on even a postage-stamp size piece of paper.

    Getting a clue yet?

    Pixels mean nothing. Content means everything.

    Until you fool bit-heads and gear-freaks get this through your thick skulls
    you'll only continue to prove and reveal to the world that you don't know
    jack-shit about photography and cameras.
     
    D.J., Feb 14, 2010
    #11
  12. RichA

    nate bishop Guest

    On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:33:15 -0500, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >On 10-02-13 22:38 , John Navas wrote:
    >> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:08:06 -0800 (PST), RichA<>
    >> wrote in
    >> <>:
    >>
    >>> Going to be tough for them to address this, seeing as they have
    >>> nothing above 12 megapixels until you hit $8000. The D90 is long in
    >>> the tooth, but how do you bring out something with 15-20 megapixels
    >>> when your pro bodies don't?
    >>>
    >>> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/CanonEOS550D/

    >>
    >> Assumes more megapixels matter. They don't.

    >
    >That's like saying "Assumes more horsepower matters. It doesn't."
    >
    >Of course the correct thing is to match pixels to final output with
    >sufficient margin for cropping and lens quality just like horsepower and
    >torque need to be matched to the needs of the vehicle.


    Total bullshit. Get over your simplistic and asinine automobile analogies.
    Just because you were a passenger in a car once doesn't qualify you to be
    any kind of expert in photography.

    >
    >If all you do is send photos by e-mail and setup large online "photo
    >galleries", then 2 Mpix is sufficient. If all you do is print 6x4 and
    >the odd 8x10, then 6 Mpix is sufficient.


    Here's two images of misty mornings. How many pixels do you think you need
    to print these to 48 inches wide. Keeping in mind that using the proper
    upsampling algorithm enhances the mists even more.

    http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4042/4356461379_8f8515525f_o.jpg

    http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4028/4356461381_8a532c47ae_o.jpg]


    >
    >As I print quite large a lot of pixels pays (whether scanned from MF or
    >from a FF camera).


    Total bullshit. You print absolutely nothing. If you ever did print
    anything, even 7"x5" prints, then you'd know enough to not spew the 100%
    bullshit that you and all other asinine trolls like you constantly spew.
     
    nate bishop, Feb 14, 2010
    #12
  13. On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:33:15 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

    > On 10-02-13 22:38 , John Navas wrote:
    >> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:08:06 -0800 (PST), RichA<>
    >> wrote in
    >> <>:
    >>
    >>> Going to be tough for them to address this, seeing as they have
    >>> nothing above 12 megapixels until you hit $8000. The D90 is long in
    >>> the tooth, but how do you bring out something with 15-20 megapixels
    >>> when your pro bodies don't?
    >>>
    >>> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/CanonEOS550D/

    >>
    >> Assumes more megapixels matter. They don't.

    >
    > That's like saying "Assumes more horsepower matters. It doesn't."
    >
    > Of course the correct thing is to match pixels to final output with
    > sufficient margin for cropping and lens quality just like horsepower and
    > torque need to be matched to the needs of the vehicle.
    >
    > If all you do is send photos by e-mail and setup large online "photo
    > galleries", then 2 Mpix is sufficient. If all you do is print 6x4 and
    > the odd 8x10, then 6 Mpix is sufficient.
    >
    > As I print quite large a lot of pixels pays (whether scanned from MF or
    > from a FF camera).


    Only for pixelpeepers. I regularly print up to 48x32" from my 6 MP 10D.
    More pixels would add absolutely _nothing_ when viewed from a normal
    distance.

    --
    Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Feb 14, 2010
    #13
  14. RichA

    Cliff Banks Guest

    On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:06:31 -0600, George Kerby <>
    wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    >On 2/14/10 1:42 PM, in article ,
    >"nate bishop" <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:33:15 -0500, Alan Browne
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 10-02-13 22:38 , John Navas wrote:
    >>>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:08:06 -0800 (PST), RichA<>
    >>>> wrote in
    >>>> <>:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Going to be tough for them to address this, seeing as they have
    >>>>> nothing above 12 megapixels until you hit $8000. The D90 is long in
    >>>>> the tooth, but how do you bring out something with 15-20 megapixels
    >>>>> when your pro bodies don't?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/CanonEOS550D/
    >>>>
    >>>> Assumes more megapixels matter. They don't.
    >>>
    >>> That's like saying "Assumes more horsepower matters. It doesn't."
    >>>
    >>> Of course the correct thing is to match pixels to final output with
    >>> sufficient margin for cropping and lens quality just like horsepower and
    >>> torque need to be matched to the needs of the vehicle.

    >>
    >> Total bullshit. Get over your simplistic and asinine automobile analogies.
    >> Just because you were a passenger in a car once doesn't qualify you to be
    >> any kind of expert in photography.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> If all you do is send photos by e-mail and setup large online "photo
    >>> galleries", then 2 Mpix is sufficient. If all you do is print 6x4 and
    >>> the odd 8x10, then 6 Mpix is sufficient.

    >>
    >> Here's two images of misty mornings. How many pixels do you think you need
    >> to print these to 48 inches wide. Keeping in mind that using the proper
    >> upsampling algorithm enhances the mists even more.
    >>
    >> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4042/4356461379_8f8515525f_o.jpg
    >>
    >> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4028/4356461381_8a532c47ae_o.jpg]
    >>
    >>
    >>>
    >>> As I print quite large a lot of pixels pays (whether scanned from MF or
    >>> from a FF camera).

    >>
    >> Total bullshit. You print absolutely nothing. If you ever did print
    >> anything, even 7"x5" prints, then you'd know enough to not spew the 100%
    >> bullshit that you and all other asinine trolls like you constantly spew.
    >>

    >
    >"Two"
    >
    ><click - click>
    >
    >"Two"
    >
    ><click - click>
    >
    >"Two Trolls in ONE!"
    >
    >But you probably were nothing but a gleam in your grandfather's eye when
    >that was popular, fucktard...


    There's that informative photography information we've all come to expect
    from you. What a fuckingly useless troll you are. Never once in your
    lifetime have you ever contributed any valid photography nor camera
    information to anyone, ever. You didn't think everyone would notice this
    about you?

    I suspect a massive kill-filter being applied globally for you. Now that
    they have finally realized this. Some of them are very slow. Like you.
     
    Cliff Banks, Feb 14, 2010
    #14
  15. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Feb 14, 2:53 pm, Robert Spanjaard <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:33:15 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
    > > On 10-02-13 22:38 , John Navas wrote:
    > >> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:08:06 -0800 (PST), RichA<>
    > >> wrote in
    > >> <>:

    >
    > >>> Going to be tough for them to address this, seeing as they have
    > >>> nothing above 12 megapixels until you hit $8000.  The D90 is long in
    > >>> the tooth, but how do you bring out something with 15-20 megapixels
    > >>> when your pro bodies don't?

    >
    > >>>http://www.dpreview.com/previews/CanonEOS550D/

    >
    > >> Assumes more megapixels matter.  They don't.

    >
    > > That's like saying "Assumes more horsepower matters.  It doesn't."

    >
    > > Of course the correct thing is to match pixels to final output with
    > > sufficient margin for cropping and lens quality just like horsepower and
    > > torque need to be matched to the needs of the vehicle.

    >
    > > If all you do is send photos by e-mail and setup large online "photo
    > > galleries", then 2 Mpix is sufficient.  If all you do is print 6x4 and
    > > the odd 8x10, then 6 Mpix is sufficient.

    >
    > > As I print quite large a lot of pixels pays (whether scanned from MF or
    > > from a FF camera).

    >
    > Only for pixelpeepers. I regularly print up to 48x32" from my 6 MP 10D.
    > More pixels would add absolutely _nothing_ when viewed from a normal
    > distance.
    >
    > --
    > Regards, Robert                                      http://www.arumes.com


    But some pros would say a 6 meg setup isn't even good enough to print
    11x14. Whose right?
     
    RichA, Feb 14, 2010
    #15
  16. RichA

    Henry Baxter Guest

    On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 13:32:59 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >On Feb 14, 2:53 pm, Robert Spanjaard <> wrote:
    >> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:33:15 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
    >> > On 10-02-13 22:38 , John Navas wrote:
    >> >> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:08:06 -0800 (PST), RichA<>
    >> >> wrote in
    >> >> <>:

    >>
    >> >>> Going to be tough for them to address this, seeing as they have
    >> >>> nothing above 12 megapixels until you hit $8000.  The D90 is long in
    >> >>> the tooth, but how do you bring out something with 15-20 megapixels
    >> >>> when your pro bodies don't?

    >>
    >> >>>http://www.dpreview.com/previews/CanonEOS550D/

    >>
    >> >> Assumes more megapixels matter.  They don't.

    >>
    >> > That's like saying "Assumes more horsepower matters.  It doesn't."

    >>
    >> > Of course the correct thing is to match pixels to final output with
    >> > sufficient margin for cropping and lens quality just like horsepower and
    >> > torque need to be matched to the needs of the vehicle.

    >>
    >> > If all you do is send photos by e-mail and setup large online "photo
    >> > galleries", then 2 Mpix is sufficient.  If all you do is print 6x4 and
    >> > the odd 8x10, then 6 Mpix is sufficient.

    >>
    >> > As I print quite large a lot of pixels pays (whether scanned from MF or
    >> > from a FF camera).

    >>
    >> Only for pixelpeepers. I regularly print up to 48x32" from my 6 MP 10D.
    >> More pixels would add absolutely _nothing_ when viewed from a normal
    >> distance.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Regards, Robert                                      http://www.arumes.com

    >
    >But some pros would say a 6 meg setup isn't even good enough to print
    >11x14. Whose right?


    The one that has convinced you that you're not intelligent enough to think
    for yourself. That's like 99.9999999% of the population of earth when it
    concerns you.
     
    Henry Baxter, Feb 14, 2010
    #16
  17. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    kerby's temper tantrum

    George Kerby <> wrote:
    >**** yourself with your douche bag probe. How is that? Was it good for you?
    >
    >Want a Marlboro for your blistered member now?


    Oh my! Do we all need some Anger Management courses in here, or what?
    kerby in <C55E9C54.1A409%>

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 15, 2010
    #17
  18. RichA

    Fred M Guest

    On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:32:59 -0600, Rich <> wrote:

    >IMO, if an image shows visible signs of quality deterioration


    Oh my. That intangible thing that everyone runs around spouting to sound
    like they might know something, but that which nobody ever defines--"image
    quality". That makes your opinion safe, doesn't it. It makes you sound like
    you have a clue of what you are talking about. But we all know better,
    don't we. You really don't know shit. You might as well multiply and divide
    by zero whenever you use the word "quality" in any statement regarding
    photography and cameras.

    Define "image quality". This should be good for a laugh.

    How about all those soft-focus portrait lenses that were/are sold at
    exorbitant prices? How about the diffusion filters to enhance an image? How
    about all the other myriad ways that an image is IMPROVED by lessening
    sharpness? Or by clipping all shadows? Or all highlights? Or both?
    Stripping it of all color information too for a masterpiece in B&W.

    How about those 270x180 pixel images from ultra-expensive "lab-quality"
    cameras designed to capture electrical-sprites in the upper atmosphere a
    couple years ago. Yet they are printed at a 6"x4" size in reputable
    magazines, scientific journals, and books. That's 45dpi being published in
    important literature. Nobody ever notices the pixel-count. Instead everyone
    is in awe over the new discovery and the images obtained. Yet it is only
    from a 270x180 pixel image. I guess you'd throw that camera away, wouldn't
    you. After-all, it can't produce a news-group troll's definition of a
    "quality image" taken with a "quality camera", can it.

    If viewers are counting your pixels or looking for noise in your
    photography instead of the admiring the content of the image, then consider
    yourself nothing but a lowly snapshooter who has never captured anything
    worth printing in the first place, at any size. Even if you had an 800
    megapixel camera with a 38EV dynamic range it still wouldn't help.

    Some of you people are so fucking stupid and ignorant with regards to
    cameras and photography that I'm surprised you even have functioning
    autonomic nervous systems.
     
    Fred M, Feb 15, 2010
    #18
  19. RichA

    Fred M Guest

    On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:32:59 -0600, Rich <> wrote:

    >IMO, if an image shows visible signs of quality deterioration


    Oh my. That intangible thing that everyone runs around spouting to sound
    like they might know something, but that which nobody ever defines--"image
    quality". That makes your opinion safe, doesn't it. It makes you sound like
    you have a clue of what you are talking about. But we all know better,
    don't we. You really don't know shit. You might as well multiply and divide
    by zero whenever you use the word "quality" in any statement regarding
    photography and cameras.

    Define "image quality". This should be good for a laugh.

    How about all those soft-focus portrait lenses that were/are sold at
    exorbitant prices? How about the diffusion filters to enhance an image? How
    about all the other myriad ways that an image is IMPROVED by lessening
    sharpness? Or by clipping all shadows? Or all highlights? Or both?
    Stripping it of all color information too for a masterpiece in B&W.

    How about those 270x180 pixel images from ultra-expensive "lab-quality"
    cameras designed to capture electrical-sprites in the upper atmosphere a
    couple years ago. Yet they are printed at a 6"x4" size in reputable
    magazines, scientific journals, and books. That's 45dpi being published in
    important literature. Nobody ever notices the pixel-count. Instead everyone
    is in awe over the new discovery and the images obtained. Yet it is only
    from a 270x180 pixel image. I guess you'd throw that camera away, wouldn't
    you. After-all, it can't produce a news-group troll's definition of a
    "quality image" taken with a "quality camera", can it.

    If viewers are counting your pixels or looking for noise in your
    photography instead of admiring the content of the image, then consider
    yourself nothing but a lowly snapshooter who has never captured anything
    worth printing in the first place, at any size. Even if you had an 800
    megapixel camera with a 38EV dynamic range it still wouldn't help.

    Some of you people are so fucking stupid and ignorant with regards to
    cameras and photography that I'm surprised you even have functioning
    autonomic nervous systems.
     
    Fred M, Feb 15, 2010
    #19
  20. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:33:15 -0500, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >On 10-02-13 22:38 , John Navas wrote:
    >> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:08:06 -0800 (PST), RichA<>
    >> wrote in
    >> <>:
    >>
    >>> Going to be tough for them to address this, seeing as they have
    >>> nothing above 12 megapixels until you hit $8000. The D90 is long in
    >>> the tooth, but how do you bring out something with 15-20 megapixels
    >>> when your pro bodies don't?
    >>>
    >>> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/CanonEOS550D/

    >>
    >> Assumes more megapixels matter. They don't.

    >
    >That's like saying "Assumes more horsepower matters. It doesn't."
    >
    >Of course the correct thing is to match pixels to final output with
    >sufficient margin for cropping and lens quality just like horsepower and
    >torque need to be matched to the needs of the vehicle.
    >
    >If all you do is send photos by e-mail and setup large online "photo
    >galleries", then 2 Mpix is sufficient. If all you do is print 6x4 and
    >the odd 8x10, then 6 Mpix is sufficient.
    >
    >As I print quite large a lot of pixels pays (whether scanned from MF or
    >from a FF camera).
    >
    >But my car has a 4 cyl. engine and is not particularly torquey below
    >2500 rpm.


    You need a Honda :)


    >But more than enough for what I need.




    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Feb 15, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand

    Falling Behind

    Silverstrand, Dec 10, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    746
    Silverstrand
    Dec 10, 2005
  2. jamie kim
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    359
    dj_nme
    Mar 6, 2007
  3. RichA
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    252
    RichA
    Mar 31, 2011
  4. RichA

    Nikon V1 already falling out of favour

    RichA, Feb 4, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    297
    Bruce
    Feb 11, 2012
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    841
    David Dyer-Bennet
    May 29, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page