STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you?

>tiresia2@hotmail.it wrote:
> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
> And you?

Two more megapixels than the guy next to me and I'm happy ...
 >> Stay informed about: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you? 

<tiresia2 RemoveThis @hotmail.it> wrote in message
news:1154291916.753030.197000@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

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

4.1
 >> Stay informed about: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you? 

tiresia2.DeleteThis@hotmail.it 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
 >> Stay informed about: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you? 

tiresia2.DeleteThis@hotmail.it 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
 >> Stay informed about: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you? 

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>
> 200 MP
>

"I have a map of the United States.
It's actual size.
Maybe you've seen it?"

-Steven Wright
 >> Stay informed about: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you? 

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.


 >> Stay informed about: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you? 

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

>tiresia2@hotmail.it 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
 >> Stay informed about: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you? 

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665 RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
>>tiresia2@hotmail.it 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
 >> Stay informed about: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you? 

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:22:20 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

>> Two more megapixels than the guy next to me and I'm happy ...
>
> That only works at the 4MP level.

You're not working at Bill's level. One of you is thinking about
discernable quality differences and the other, oneupmanship. But
it's not clear which is which, who is who or whom is whom.

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

Oh. Now it's so clear that it's utterly pellucid!
(and I do hope that your pun was intentional)
 >> Stay informed about: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you? 

"Raphael Bustin" <foo.DeleteThis@bar.com> wrote:
> "Roger N. Clark (change username) wrote:
>>
>>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.

You'd get to 100 or 200 MP a lot faster if you start with 12.7 than if you
start with 6 or 8.

The incremental number of pixels per frame would be a lot larger, since you
could use only slightly more pixels in the overlap, thus putting the
majority of the added pixels into the total. (I think, anyway.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you? 

In article <1154291916.753030.197000.DeleteThis@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
tiresia2.DeleteThis@hotmail.it wrote:

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

The more the better. The problem is that the lenses become more
expensive, quality sensors become more expensive, and the optimal
operating conditions become more restrictive. Many people were
disappointed when the Digital Rebel first came out and nobody could beat
a 4MP quality image. That kit lens wasn't so great, people's shaking
hands generated motion blur, and use of the aperture is completely over
some people's heads.

4-6MP seems good for an novice, 6-10 for a enthusiast, and the pros will
never get enough.

I'm happy with the 8MP of my Canon 350D but I wouldn't mind having more
in my next camera. I'd buy more fixed lenses because I can't afford
ultra-sharp zooms.
 >> Stay informed about: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you? 

<tiresia2.TakeThisOut@hotmail.it> schreef in bericht
news:1154291916.753030.197000@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.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/
 >> Stay informed about: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you? 

tiresia2 DeleteThis @hotmail.it wrote:
> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
> And you?
>
> (Ah,excuse me...Copiryght by phil askey)

Forgive me but I don't get the Phil Askey bit?

Anyway, it is all about what you shoot and how big you print.

Portraits and macros look gorgeous at 13" x 19" or even larger, from
8Mp. But a detailed landscape? Nope.

If we are staying within reasonable but high expectations from 35mm
equipment, then 16Mp would be nice, but 20-50 would be nicerer. (That
may sound over the top, but as has been stated by others, to see much
of a difference you pretty well need to double the megapixels...)

And while it's very close, I still don't think the 1DSMkII quite
matches what I could do with Kodachrome 25 or the better black and
white films, in terms of pure, detail-grabbing resolution. Don't get
me wrong, in other areas it runs rings around film.. and I am talking
about projected (or drum-scanned) images here... And yes I know that
is getting much more into the realm of medium format.

But can they get =20 decent Mp out of a 35mm film frame? I dunno,
but given what Fuji manage to extract from their octagonal and
double-sensor designs, I think it's possible.
 >> Stay informed about: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you?