From: ____ on
In article <GC0zk.4625$Dj1.1718(a)newsfe01.iad>,
"Jing-Jing" <jing(a)jing.invalid> wrote:

> "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.

& one could buy a nice used MF-LF film camera, plus a lot of film and
still have some money left. Not worrying that suddenly 6 months from the
purchase date that the camera will become obsolete.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
From: ____ on
In article <ha7pc4hhea1hhrgpmh7f4l1svio7k20eqi(a)4ax.com>,
The Kat <news1(a)katxyzkave.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 04:40:46 GMT, "Jing-Jing" <jing(a)jing.invalid> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> If the difference between 12 and 24MP isn't enough, then the difference
> between 24 and 50MP won't be either.
>
> Maybe when they hit 100MP, AND you have a computer with 128 bit processing,
> 32 gigs of ram, Windows 2020, and several 10 terabyte HDs.

Resolution is more a function of lens quality than any thing. The
increase in file size just makes bigger prints possible.

Now I would a 24 mp file should have a greater dynamic range which can
help perception of sharpness.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on
Jing-Jing <jing(a)jing.invalid> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote in

> 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?

You bought film, more film and more and newer film.
You bought chemicals for developmnt, more of them, more and
newer of them (or paid a developing service).

-Wolfgang
From: Bob on
In article <%y4zk.9929$QF5.6503(a)newsfe08.iad>, jing(a)jing.invalid says...
> Scott W <biphoto(a)hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:9b0fa9eb-d0d4-411b-bef7-9b5937874e3b(a)q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com:
>
> > You can always turn a hi-res sharp image into a soft one, if that is
> > really what you want, but you can't turn a low-res image into a sharp
> > one. For me I would rather start with a sharp image, if you like
> > nothing but soft images then maybe a Holga is what you really want.
> >
> > Scott
> >
>
> Never said "like nothing but soft images". Merely stating that a 2.1mp DC
> can give a great 20"x30" print if used in the right manner. You guys are
> stating that you need X camera for X print size which is just not true
> because you are not considering the intended final image.

and you are assuming that a rare exception is the rule.
wrong.

>
From: Bob on
In article <internetphobic-D8E94E.05212114092008
@newsgroups.comcast.net>, internetphobic(a)deletedmail.com says...
> In article <ha7pc4hhea1hhrgpmh7f4l1svio7k20eqi(a)4ax.com>,
> The Kat <news1(a)katxyzkave.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 04:40:46 GMT, "Jing-Jing" <jing(a)jing.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >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.
> >
> > If the difference between 12 and 24MP isn't enough, then the difference
> > between 24 and 50MP won't be either.
> >
> > Maybe when they hit 100MP, AND you have a computer with 128 bit processing,
> > 32 gigs of ram, Windows 2020, and several 10 terabyte HDs.
>
> Resolution is more a function of lens quality than any thing. The
> increase in file size just makes bigger prints possible.

wow.
really clueless.

>
> Now I would a 24 mp file should have a greater dynamic range which can
> help perception of sharpness.
>
>