10 MP

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

There was some talk a few months ago about 10 MP (consumer) CCDs hitting
the market soon. Have any 10MP non-DSLR cameras been announced yet ?>>>


Nope...but after dumping my new 8 MP Nikon 8800 for a Nikon D70, I finally see
what a joke these big MP numbers are. Sensor size is more important. My 6 MP
D70 is a far more capable camera across the board.

RB

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bobsprit wrote:

> There was some talk a few months ago about 10 MP (consumer) CCDs hitting
> the market soon. Have any 10MP non-DSLR cameras been announced yet ?>>>
>
>
> Nope...but after dumping my new 8 MP Nikon 8800 for a Nikon D70, I finally see
> what a joke these big MP numbers are. Sensor size is more important. My 6 MP
> D70 is a far more capable camera across the board.
>
Well, the lens just might make a difference, too!

--
John McWilliams

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message
newsfIzd.12349$fe5.3973@trndny06...
> Which begs the question....how many cams have full 35mm sized sensors? Any
> of them reasonably priced?

Canon makes one and Kodak makes two, one each for Canon and Nikon lenses.
The Canon is about $8K, the Kodaks sell between $3.5K and $5K.

If you can reduce your total expenses by shooting digital and not paying for
film, processing, and scanning, then their true cost of ownership may be
lower than film cameras. Depends on the user, of course.

>
> "Bobsprit" <bobsprit@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20041226151926.07924.00002917@mb-m07.aol.com...
>> There was some talk a few months ago about 10 MP (consumer) CCDs hitting
>> the market soon. Have any 10MP non-DSLR cameras been announced yet ?>>>
>>
>>
>> Nope...but after dumping my new 8 MP Nikon 8800 for a Nikon D70, I
>> finally
> see
>> what a joke these big MP numbers are. Sensor size is more important. My 6
> MP
>> D70 is a far more capable camera across the board.
>>
>> RB
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

It's Christmas...I can't afford a toothbrush! Maybe the kids will buy one
for me! I cannot afford the Mamiya ZD with the largest sensor I have heard
of in a non-governmental project. But I can dream. I know the best Canons
have them...but how far back? Kodak's 14mp....maybe. Any others? I did not
ask about APS size because I am not at all interested in APS....so go start
your own chain of messages if you have nothing to contribute to this one.

"Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message
newsfIzd.12349$fe5.3973@trndny06...
> Which begs the question....how many cams have full 35mm sized sensors? Any
> of them reasonably priced?
>
> "Bobsprit" <bobsprit@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20041226151926.07924.00002917@mb-m07.aol.com...
> > There was some talk a few months ago about 10 MP (consumer) CCDs hitting
> > the market soon. Have any 10MP non-DSLR cameras been announced yet ?>>>
> >
> >
> > Nope...but after dumping my new 8 MP Nikon 8800 for a Nikon D70, I
finally
> see
> > what a joke these big MP numbers are. Sensor size is more important. My
6
> MP
> > D70 is a far more capable camera across the board.
> >
> > RB
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <SnJzd.240577$5K2.83913@attbi_s03>, nick c <n-chen@comcast.net>
wrote:

> although the jump from 8MP to 10MP is a 25% increase, I doubt the
> photo quality increase will be readily seen in 4x6 -> 8x10 prints.
> Six and eight Mp's have produced great prints in those sizes and
> it has been demonstrated about five MP's apparently is good enough
> for photo journalism.

I took my first, serious look at Canon digital SLRs a few years ago. I recall
the TOP of the line - at that time - sported 11.xMP and the body alone was
>$7,500US. I recall its sensor was the "same" size as a frame of 35mm film.
That is when I began paying attention to the technology.

I "jumped on the bandwagon" December 9 with the purchase of a Canon 20D. In
typical, personal style, I made the purchase and THEN began determining
whether I'd bought a good camera and how much MORE I paid for it than I could
have. Now it's the learning part. <sigh>

Canon 20D, 8.2MP
22.5 x 15.0 mm sensor

<http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=139
&modelid=10464>
<http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/>

Nikon D70, 6.1MP
23.7 x 15.6 mm sensor

<http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=2&productNr=25214>
<http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/>

What am I to make of this? Is this strictly a case of placing more megapixels
onto a smaller chip?

So now I have an apparently GREAT camera whose output, to me, is outstanding.
However, it has already begun consuming sizable chunks of my hard-disk drive.
It will probably take some time to decide if the medium or even small/fine
setting is best for most shots. Then there's RAW. ...and editing software.


JR

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

It's not the size, but how you use it...

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Darrell" <no@spam.here> wrote in message
newsLidnZwYVJGVClLcRVn-jg@rogers.com...
> It's not the size, but how you use it...


That is what those with small ones say. And small ones do as good a job as
needs doing in most cases. But, consumers who have tried both get a strange
smile on their faces when thinking of the difference in Quality of the
experience. Size doesn't matter is what they say...bigger is better is their
experience.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <7xfz1seghw.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>, Paul
Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> says...
> "Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> writes:
> > Which begs the question....how many cams have full 35mm sized sensors? Any
> > of them reasonably priced?
>


to "beg" in the sense of logic, means to
"improperly take for granted"
not to raise.



--
www.fiveminutesoffame.com
Get your five minutes of FAME

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Frank ess responds:

>Five wrote:
>> In article <7xfz1seghw.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>, Paul
>> Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> says...
>>> "Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> writes:
>>>> Which begs the question....how many cams have full 35mm sized
>>>> sensors? Any of them reasonably priced?
>>>
>>
>>
>> to "beg" in the sense of logic, means to
>> "improperly take for granted"
>> not to raise.
>
>Hooray!
>
>Of course your assistance will be ignored or denigrated.
>
>I wonder if these guys have stopped beating their mothers ...

Yes! I've come close to doing what Five did here, but have refrained, to my
regret. "To beg" a question has, AFAIK, never meant to "ask a question."

It still doesn't.

Charlie Self
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder
respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

nick c wrote:
> Consider too, although the jump from 8MP to 10MP is a 25% increase...

Remembering, of course ;-) that this is a 25% increase in *area*. The
increase in dots-per-inch is a little less than 12%. It depends how you
look at it.

I am wondering whether I should go for the 4Mp Panasonic FZ20, instead
of the 3.2Mp FZ3. Obviously, more pixels is better, all else being
equal, but the difference is not as big as you'd hope.

If you print a photo from the 3.2Mp FZ3 at 6 x 4, you can go to 6.75 x
4.5 with the output from the 4Mp FZ20, and get the same resolution. Not
as much as the increase from 3.2 to 4 megapixels might lead you to hope
for. ;-)

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Pattern-chaser" <pattern-chaser@merrick.britishlibrary.net> wrote in message news:HNednTyWq9VnVUzcRVnyrQ@pipex.net...
> nick c wrote:
> > Consider too, although the jump from 8MP to 10MP is a 25% increase...
>
> Remembering, of course ;-) that this is a 25% increase in *area*. The
> increase in dots-per-inch is a little less than 12%. It depends how you
> look at it.
>
> I am wondering whether I should go for the 4Mp Panasonic FZ20, instead
> of the 3.2Mp FZ3. Obviously, more pixels is better, all else being
> equal, but the difference is not as big as you'd hope.
>
> If you print a photo from the 3.2Mp FZ3 at 6 x 4, you can go to 6.75 x
> 4.5 with the output from the 4Mp FZ20, and get the same resolution. Not
> as much as the increase from 3.2 to 4 megapixels might lead you to hope
> for. ;-)

A minor correction -
FZ3 = 3.2 Mp
FZ15 = 4.0 Mp
FZ20 = 5.0 Mp

The jump in image resolution from 3.2 - 5.0 won't be noticed much (if at all) when
printing 6 x 4 but if you zoom into/crop the picture the extra 1.6 Mp will make a
noticable difference.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken wrote:

> The jump in image resolution from 3.2 - 5.0 won't be noticed much (if at all) when
> printing 6 x 4 but if you zoom into/crop the picture the extra 1.6 Mp will make a
> noticable difference.
>
>

I think I can see the difference between a 3MP and 4MP image printed at 6x4.

Perhaps the difference was that the 3MP image was printed on a Kodak dye-sub
printer dock and my 4MP image was printed on a 4800x2400 2 pico-litre drop sized
Canon i9950.

--
--
Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia

My Digital World:
Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Frank ess wrote:
> Pattern-chaser wrote:
>
>>'Begging the question' is a widely understood and accepted idiom.
>>Language belongs to its speakers. Don't take yourselves so seriously,
>>guys! ;-)
>
> ... he said, begging the question, and raising others: "Is it OK to
> assume people who make serious statements take themselves 'so
> seriously'? and, "When will people stop confusing 'widely understood and
> accepted' with 'correct'?"

Correct? Language was invented (developed? whatever! ;-)) by humans; it
is continually reinvented by humans, for their own use. There are no
rules. [Well there are, but the number of exceptions to them illustrates
my point.] In this context, 'widely understood and accepted' *defines*
'correct', I think. ;-)

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 22:11:16 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:

> Pattern-chaser responds:
>
>>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>>> In message <20041227144545.06368.00002145@mb-m18.aol.com>,
>>> charliediy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes! I've come close to doing what Five did here, but have refrained, to my
>>>>regret. "To beg" a question has, AFAIK, never meant to "ask a question."
>>>>
>>>>It still doesn't.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Begging the question" is something like, "Who created the universe?", a
>>> question which assumes (in a leap of logic) that some personality
>>> created the universe.
>>
>>'Begging the question' is a widely understood and accepted idiom.
>>Language belongs to its speakers. Don't take yourselves so seriously,
>>guys! ;-)
>>
> Actually, you're right: it is a well accepted idiom, but that idiom does not
> mean "to ask a question."
>
> If pointing that out is take oneself too seriously, then that's just bad luck.
>
> Charlie Self
> "Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder
> respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell




Is it truly "bad luck" or is it more accurately and commonly just "too bad"?

Perus