From: ____ on
In article <MPG.233743639294cca5989722(a)news.verizon.net>,
Bob <Crownfield(a)verizon.net> wrote:

> >
> > 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.

You are! & rude as always.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
From: Jing-Jing on
Bob <Crownfield(a)verizon.net> wrote in
news:MPG.23374328b2b3709e989721(a)news.verizon.net:

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

I'm not assuming anything. There are no rules is my point.
From: ____ on
In article <MPG.2337709f28426ba7989723(a)news.verizon.net>,
Bob <Crownfield(a)verizon.net> wrote:

Bye bye "Bob"

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
From: Bob on
In article <n4hzk.5015$hW5.3937(a)newsfe07.iad>, jing(a)jing.invalid says...
> Bob <Crownfield(a)verizon.net> wrote in
> news:MPG.23374328b2b3709e989721(a)news.verizon.net:
>
> > and you are assuming that a rare exception is the rule.
> > wrong.
>
> I'm not assuming anything. There are no rules is my point.

I do not agree.

you said"
> 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.

"
bigger prints need more pixels about 99% of the time.
about 1% of the time you can make a
print where resolution is not the controlling parameter.

you are assuming that a rare exception is the rule.

From: David J. Littleboy on

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote:
> Jing-Jing <jing(a)jing.invalid> wrote:
>
>> 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 tried to make a print larger than 11x14 and realized you needed 6x7.

> 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).

That also. The 3 years of film savings from the 5D will pay for my 5DII.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan