From: Me on
Bowser wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:51:11 +1300, Me <user(a)domain.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Bowser wrote:
>>> While I did not upgrade from the 5D to
>>> the 5D II simply for more resolution, the added resolution is clearly
>>> visible in prints as small as 8 x 10.
>>>
>> Did you upgrade from about 3mp?
>> I've actually used and compared 5d 1 &II, and my conclusion is very much
>> the same as this:
>> http://www.astroweb.no/a900/a700-vs-a900.html
>>
>> Added resolution "clearly visible at 8x10" is plain and utter nonsense.
>> I think I actually can tell the difference between 6 and 24mp at 10x8,
>> but to say it's "clearly visible" is totally delusional.
>> Printer used is R1800, which also exceeded wet-process print resolution
>> (150lpi) by about double (horizontal) to about 50% (radial) (printer
>> uses the same print engine as the R2400 used by David L).
>
> Sorry, I see the difference. If you don't, I don't care. I'm not
> trying to convince you of anything.
>
It's the detail on the hem of the emperor's jacket...
I don't care either - I'm not on a mission to rid usenet of garbage in -
gospel out delusion .
From: Paul Furman on
Robert Spanjaard wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:34:51 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:
>
>>> Who are 'they'? Pentax or Kodak? Why do you consider degraded image
>>> quality to be an improvement?
>>
>> I don't think they need to degrade image quality to provide live view.
>> There are so many high end DSLRs around with live view.
>
> And how many of them use full frame CCD's? How do you switch from full
> frame CCD to CMOS without losing image quality?

Nikon D700 is CMOS, very high performing 12 MP with live view, though it
doesn't zoom to full 100% in live view. It's not 20 MP either <g>.
From: dj_nme on
Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <4b983674$0$24251$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au>,
> dj_nme(a)optusnet.com.au says...
>> Even if it was a 60fps EVF, at this price-point I would be very
>> surprised if a 640x480 EVF could "cut the mustard".
>> If it were possible to stream an HD video signal from this sensor to an
>> HD EVF, then it might (maybe) be worth it.
>
> A zoomable 800x600x3 EVF or LCD screen would suffice for precise manual
> focus. Zoom 10x and you will be beyond pixel level. This technology is
> already in place today in consumer DSLRs.

Why do you really believe that this sort of consumer-level EVF would
pass muster on a pro-level MF digital camera?
From: Alfred Molon on
In article <ae99d$4b9a5f8d$546accd9$24298(a)cache90.multikabel.net>,
spamtrap(a)arumes.com says...

> And how many of them use full frame CCD's? How do you switch from full
> frame CCD to CMOS without losing image quality?

Do some research and you will find out how many cameras with 24x36mm
sensors have live view.

Not sure why CCD vs CMOS matter. Perhaps you want to elaborate on this?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
From: Robert Spanjaard on
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:11:18 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:

>> And how many of them use full frame CCD's? How do you switch from full
>> frame CCD to CMOS without losing image quality?
>
> Do some research and you will find out how many cameras with 24x36mm
> sensors have live view.
>
> Not sure why CCD vs CMOS matter. Perhaps you want to elaborate on this?

There's enough elaboration available on the net. You're telling me to do
some research, but you don't care to do some yourself. You don't even
understand what the term "full frame CCD" refers to.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com