From: Celcius on

"The Kat" <news1(a)katxyzkave.net> wrote in message
news:gs0ic4l9fbf6jp220fnlto4fdacal1691u(a)4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:45:52 +1200, missfocus <user(a)invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>Studio shot comparison 12mp vs 24 mp dx/fx comparison here 100% pixel
>>view.
>>More pixels is a big deal huh?
>
>
> So you're saying you CAN'T see the difference??
>
>
>
> --

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


From: David J. Littleboy on

"Celcius" <celcius38(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> "The Kat" <news1(a)katxyzkave.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:45:52 +1200, missfocus <user(a)invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Studio shot comparison 12mp vs 24 mp dx/fx comparison here 100% pixel
>>>view.
>>>More pixels is a big deal huh?
>>
>>
>> So you're saying you CAN'T see the difference??
>
> Or one might also ask if the difference's worth spending much more money
> to achieve it?

They're the same price...

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


From: missfocus on
David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Celcius" <celcius38(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "The Kat" <news1(a)katxyzkave.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:45:52 +1200, missfocus <user(a)invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Studio shot comparison 12mp vs 24 mp dx/fx comparison here 100% pixel
>>>> view.
>>>> More pixels is a big deal huh?
>>>
>>> So you're saying you CAN'T see the difference??
>> Or one might also ask if the difference's worth spending much more money
>> to achieve it?
>
> They're the same price...
>
no - you're wrong.
From: Alan Browne on
Celcius wrote:
> "The Kat" <news1(a)katxyzkave.net> wrote in message
> news:gs0ic4l9fbf6jp220fnlto4fdacal1691u(a)4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:45:52 +1200, missfocus <user(a)invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Studio shot comparison 12mp vs 24 mp dx/fx comparison here 100% pixel
>>> view.
>>> More pixels is a big deal huh?
>>
>> So you're saying you CAN'T see the difference??
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>
> Or one might also ask if the difference's worth spending much more money to
> achieve it?
> Marcel

<sigh> To double resolution, one must quadruple pixels.

What I will get when I go from a 6Mpix camera to a 24 Mpix camera (sort of).

Why sort of? Well, the senor is larger, so I will have 4 times as many
"production" pixels to work with the capture resolution (lp/mm on the
sensor) won't be quite as much. Which is a good thing, of course.


--
-- 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: John McWilliams on
Alan Browne wrote:
> Celcius wrote:
>> "The Kat" <news1(a)katxyzkave.net> wrote in message
>> news:gs0ic4l9fbf6jp220fnlto4fdacal1691u(a)4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:45:52 +1200, missfocus <user(a)invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Studio shot comparison 12mp vs 24 mp dx/fx comparison here 100%
>>>> pixel view.
>>>> More pixels is a big deal huh?
>>>
>>> So you're saying you CAN'T see the difference??

>> Or one might also ask if the difference's worth spending much more
>> money to achieve it?
>> Marcel
>
> <sigh> To double resolution, one must quadruple pixels.
>
> What I will get when I go from a 6Mpix camera to a 24 Mpix camera (sort
> of).
>
> Why sort of? Well, the senor is larger, so I will have 4 times as many
> "production" pixels to work with the capture resolution (lp/mm on the
> sensor) won't be quite as much. Which is a good thing, of course.

Quite right.

The amusing thing is when folks say, "But that's just 1.4x the
resolution!" As if a 40% increase were nothing at all.

--
john mcwilliams