From: Alan Browne on
No Spam wrote:
> "Scott W" <biphoto(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c7038e21-ca09-444d-925e-5f1e3c1a481f(a)b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 11, 4:01 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...(a)Freelunchvideotron.ca>
> wrote:
>> If the camera is used with really good lenses then you can make a
>> 12x18 inch print from the 24MP camera that is just as sharp as a
>> 8.5x12.75 inch print from the 12MP camera, is this worth that little?
>>
>> The differance might not be a knock you socks off kind of thing, but I
>> would not dismiss a gain of resolution of that level.
>>
>> Scott
>
> This should be on alt.urban.legend...
>
> You can get excellent 12x18" prints from a 6 mp dSLR. IMHO people should put
> their calculators away and take photos. Only the marketers and measurbators
> care.

6 mpix? I'll go for 12x8" (not 12x18") as very good and I've done quite
a few. I'll even go to 10x15" (which I occasionally do) as pretty
darned good, but you don't want people looking too closely either.

12x18" I wouldn't get too eager about...

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
From: Jing-Jing on
John A. <no.john(a)spammers.virginiaquilter.allowed.com> wrote in
news:guhic49ssmbb271pd4mbj2gc9pdjavv8ai(a)4ax.com:

> I assume the one on the left is the 24mp. You can especially see the
> difference in the highlights on the lips, skin texture, and the black
> speck to the right of her nostril, although there *could* be focus
> issues involved. I'd have to see the 12mp not up-rezzed.
>

Hair in the 24mp shows more finer detail too but it is not a big enough
difference to warrant a new camera with 24mp. Not for me anyway. Maybe 50mp
is when I will get a new DSLR.
From: Jing-Jing on
"Celcius" <celcius38(a)hotmail.com> wrote in
news:gab0ik$ca3$1(a)registered.motzarella.org:

> Or one might also ask if the difference's worth spending much more
> money to achieve it?
> Marcel

Depends on how you intend to display the photos. If you want large prints
for art gallery display then it may be worth it.
From: Jing-Jing on
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote in
news:OcCdnUo-Jo6mv1TVnZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d(a)giganews.com:

>
> They're the same price...
>

Not if you already own a 10 - 12mp DSLR. You would need to buy a new DSLR
to get the 24mp. I'm not in the habit of buying a new camera every time the
technology advances. Geez, what happened to the days when a Pentax 645 was
your camera for life?
From: Jing-Jing on
Scott W <biphoto(a)hotmail.com> wrote in
news:4c202125-cff2-43d8-88f5-3c31729927ba(a)i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> You can make a decent looking 12x18 print, but if you make the same
> print from a 12 MP image it is going to look sharper. T0 get a super
> sharp print you need more like 35 MP, 400ppi, but you have to look
> pretty close at the print to tell the differance between 300ppi and
> 400ppi.
>
> Scott
>

And what if I don't want it to be sharp? Maybe I want the image to be soft
and fuzzy looking. I can get a good quality 20x30 print from my 2.1mp
Olympus 2020z if those are my priorities.