Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

8mp or 6mp?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
September 1, 2005 3:32:56 PM

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

First DSLR would it be worth spending extra to buy a 8mp compared to a 6mp ?
Does it make that big of a difference? That is the only reason I would buy
one over the other.
(canon eos350D or Pentax istdl)

More about : 8mp 6mp

Anonymous
September 1, 2005 3:32:57 PM

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

"Peter" <Lopy@dj.com.au.> wrote in message
news:IFBRe.18873$FA3.16668@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> First DSLR would it be worth spending extra to buy a 8mp compared to a 6mp
> ?
> Does it make that big of a difference? That is the only reason I would buy
> one over the other.
> (canon eos350D or Pentax istdl)
>

The answer to the question depends on what you plan to do with the pictures.
In the case of web images [and assuming one sizes them with reasonable
download times in mind] and 4x6 prints even 3 or 4 megapixel cams can be
perfectly fine. Above 4x6 you'll start wanting more. If you will be doing
prints larger than 8x10 than the 8meg will be more suited to your printing
needs. If you will not be doing large prints than 6 megs is more than ample,
and in that case go for the camera that offers you the most features [forget
megs both will do] you need, and is generally the better camera for the type
of photography you will be doing. No camera will be perfect in every way in
my opinion.

One advantage of 8megs over 6megs no matter what you will be doing with the
images is the extra room for cropping out around the subject(s). In that
case you can never have enough megs in my opinion.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 3:32:57 PM

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

If you compare 6MP vs. 8MP, think of how many pixels are along a single
axis. For example, Rebel 300 has 3072 pixels in the long axis, compared
to Rebel 350 having 3456. That is a 13% difference in pixel count, or
a 13% difference in the total print size *at the same pixel count per
inch* on the final print.
So assuming you think 150 pixels per inch is the fewest your eye will
accept as 'good enough', the Rebel 350 goes to 23" long print compared
to 20.5" for the Rebel 300 at the same level of quality. Not exactly
an earthshaking difference. But put in different terms, you can take
picture with 350 and crop off 13% of the image length and get the exact
same size photo as 300 with no cropping at all...which could be very
significant for some people who crop their shots after the fact. Some
shapshooters never crop anything ("just get the print from the
drugstore"), so 13% crop ability is meaningless to them.
Related resources
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 3:38:09 PM

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

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 11:32:56 +0000, Peter wrote:

> First DSLR would it be worth spending extra to buy a 8mp compared to a 6mp
> ? Does it make that big of a difference? That is the only reason I would
> buy one over the other.
> (canon eos350D or Pentax istdl)

You could, of course, wait and get the 12.5MP Canon 5D when it's available
in a few months. ;-)

Stefan
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 4:55:05 PM

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

Peter <Lopy@dj.com.au.> wrote:
> First DSLR would it be worth spending extra to buy a 8mp compared to a 6mp ?
> Does it make that big of a difference? That is the only reason I would buy
> one over the other.
> (canon eos350D or Pentax istdl)
>

It should make no difference on prints up to 8x10 or 11x17. After that
it might make a difference in some cases, more noticably at higher
resolutions. I have seen excellent 20x30 prints from a 6.3MP Canon
Digital Rebel (300D).

I think the main difference 8.0MP buys you is the flexibility to do more
cropping. This is useful during the digital darkroom exercises, but in
general, I prefer to spend less time there. So, I try as best as I can
to frame the picture in the viewfinder the way I want my final image to
appear. So, I chose my camera based upon functionality and not MP
(which is just a masculine schlong comparison for most people anyway).

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 4:55:06 PM

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

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote>
> It should make no difference on prints up to 8x10 or 11x17.

Can you support the claim with examples that demonstrate there is no
difference between an 11x17 shot with the 6mp Rebel 350/XT and the 8mp *ist?

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 4:55:07 PM

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

Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:

>
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote>
>> It should make no difference on prints up to 8x10 or 11x17.
>
> Can you support the claim with examples that demonstrate there is no
> difference between an 11x17 shot with the 6mp Rebel 350/XT and the 8mp *ist?

I wouldn't say "NO difference", but I would say "not an appreciable
difference".

The 350D has a resolution of 3456 x 2304 = 8MP

The *ist has a resolution of 3008 x 2008 = 6MP

If you look at the difference horizontally and vertically, the you
can see the 350D only has the advantage of 448 X 296 pixels.

Looking at the horizontal component.. If you spread these 448 extra
pixels across 10 inches, then you get 44.8 DPI.

I doubt anyone could tell the difference at a glance between an
image printed at 300 DPI or one that was 45 DPI less. (255 DPI)
Both are considered adequate for photo quality prints.

Lets say you printed the images at 20 inches. Now the difference is
22.4 DPI.. The larger you print the images the less advantage 8MP
has over 6MP.

The most significant thing 8mp provides is a bit more latitude
cropping.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 5:59:09 PM

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

"Jim Townsend" wrote
>
> I wouldn't say "NO difference", but I would say "not an appreciable
> difference".
>
> The 350D has a resolution of 3456 x 2304 = 8MP
>
> The *ist has a resolution of 3008 x 2008 = 6MP
>

I agree that there is a difference even if that difference is small at
11x17. If the OP is going to be doing a lot of 11x17 or higher than the 8mp
would benefit him.

Ooops, I mixed up the models'N'mps.

Good explanation of the differences in pixel count over spread of paper
dimension, by the way.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 6:45:10 PM

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

In article <RiCRe.230$hW.82@tor-nn1>,
"Linda Nieuwenstein" <buzzball@REMOVETHIS-allstream.net> wrote:

> One advantage of 8megs over 6megs no matter what you will be doing with the
> images is the extra room for cropping out around the subject(s). In that
> case you can never have enough megs in my opinion.

Yer greedy. :^P

Perfection is the enemy of good.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 6:45:11 PM

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

"kz8rt3" wrote...
>
> Yer greedy. :^P
>

hehehehe...or just too poor to buy a really nice, long telephoto? hehehe.

> Perfection is the enemy of good.

Oh my, what an enemy I must be :-) hahahahaha, just kidding of course...far
from perfect indeed, but generally good!

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 7:24:07 PM

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

Linda Nieuwenstein <buzzball@removethis-allstream.net> wrote:
>
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote>
>> It should make no difference on prints up to 8x10 or 11x17.
>
> Can you support the claim with examples that demonstrate there is no
> difference between an 11x17 shot with the 6mp Rebel 350/XT and the 8mp *ist?
>

I didn't make that claim. I simple indicate that you are not likely to
notice much difference. I have seen decent quality blowup to 20x30 from
a 6.3MP Canon Digital Rebel, so YMMV.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 8:29:25 PM

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

"Peter" <Lopy@dj.com.au.> wrote in message
news:IFBRe.18873$FA3.16668@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> First DSLR would it be worth spending extra to buy a 8mp compared to a 6mp
> ?
> Does it make that big of a difference? That is the only reason I would buy
> one over the other.
> (canon eos350D or Pentax istdl)
>
Go for the 8Mp. You can get bigger prints with the same resolution - you
also get access to the excellent Canon L lenses if you buy the 350D. The
only downside is the size of the files, but with larger CF cards getting
cheaper and fast modern computers it's not much of a downside.

John
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 8:35:27 PM

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

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4316fa29$0$63620$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net...

> It should make no difference on prints up to 8x10 or 11x17. After that
> it might make a difference in some cases, more noticably at higher
> resolutions. I have seen excellent 20x30 prints from a 6.3MP Canon
> Digital Rebel (300D).
>
> I think the main difference 8.0MP buys you is the flexibility to do more
> cropping. This is useful during the digital darkroom exercises, but in
> general, I prefer to spend less time there. So, I try as best as I can
> to frame the picture in the viewfinder the way I want my final image to
> appear. So, I chose my camera based upon functionality and not MP
> (which is just a masculine schlong comparison for most people anyway).
>
>
Have you thought about the lens?
A 6MP with a good lens in my view is more desirable than a 8MP with a run of
the mill lens. For instance, a Nikon A70 with a very good lens is certainly
preferable to a Canon Rebel XT with the kit lens. In my view, the number of
megapixels is only a tiny part of the story.
Marcel
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 9:13:52 PM

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

In article <vrGRe.251$hW.123@tor-nn1>, buzzball@REMOVETHIS-allstream.net
says...
>
> "Jim Townsend" wrote
> >
> > I wouldn't say "NO difference", but I would say "not an appreciable
> > difference".
> >
> > The 350D has a resolution of 3456 x 2304 = 8MP
> >
> > The *ist has a resolution of 3008 x 2008 = 6MP
> >
>
> I agree that there is a difference even if that difference is small at
> 11x17. If the OP is going to be doing a lot of 11x17 or higher than the 8mp
> would benefit him.
>
> Ooops, I mixed up the models'N'mps.
>
> Good explanation of the differences in pixel count over spread of paper
> dimension, by the way.
>
> Take care,
> Linda
>
>
>

As a person who shoots with both an 8mp camera and a 6mp camera, I dont
see any GREAT advantage in the slightly larger dimension of the 8mp
images.. however, cropping is easier but only slightly easier, as the
larger dimensions arent that much larger.

On any given day I'll shoot with the camera I have in my hand, and give
not a single thought to the number of pixels. (I thought I would, thats
why I have two cameras, but it just didnt work out that way).


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 9:34:28 PM

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

Eatmorepies <naj9daynum3@lineone.net> wrote:
> Go for the 8Mp. You can get bigger prints with the same resolution - you
> also get access to the excellent Canon L lenses if you buy the 350D. The
> only downside is the size of the files, but with larger CF cards getting
> cheaper and fast modern computers it's not much of a downside.
>

How much bigger? I dare say it is not largely significant.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 9:38:53 PM

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

> Go for the 8Mp. You can get bigger prints with the same resolution - you
> also get access to the excellent Canon L lenses if you buy the 350D. The
> only downside is the size of the files, but with larger CF cards getting
> cheaper and fast modern computers it's not much of a downside.

Or go for the original Digital Rebel.......

with a 6Mp resolution which would still allow you to use all EF and EF-S
Canon lenses (and they are almost giving the original rebel away now).

Spend the money you would have spent on the other cameras + lens on the 300D
and one of the L range of lenses which best suits your needs (might need a
bit of extra money depending on lens choice).

That way you can flog the 300D (or bin it) in two years time and upgrade to
the latest greatest new body and still have an excellent lens which is worth
90% of the money you spent on it originally.

Just what I would do :) 
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 1:18:08 AM

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

In article <IFBRe.18873$FA3.16668@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
Lopy@dj.com.au. says...
> First DSLR would it be worth spending extra to buy a 8mp compared to a 6mp ?
> Does it make that big of a difference? That is the only reason I would buy
> one over the other.
> (canon eos350D or Pentax istdl)
>
>
>
You should check out www.kenrockwell.com for a great article on this
debate. He goes through the real advantages and disadvantages and there
are even other good articles on many different aspects of digital
photography.
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 1:35:29 AM

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

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:43173ba3$0$8036$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net...
> Eatmorepies <naj9daynum3@lineone.net> wrote:
>> Go for the 8Mp. You can get bigger prints with the same resolution - you
>> also get access to the excellent Canon L lenses if you buy the 350D. The
>> only downside is the size of the files, but with larger CF cards getting
>> cheaper and fast modern computers it's not much of a downside.
>>
>
> How much bigger? I dare say it is not largely significant.
>
> --
15% on the linear dimensions. Could be just the right amount to make that 12
by 15 print work.

John
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 6:10:51 AM

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

I would only add that MP is not the only consideration. Some cameras just
give a cleaner image than others.

--
Thanks,
Gene Palmiter
(visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com)
freebridge design group
www.route611.com & Route 611 Magazine
"Peter" <Lopy@dj.com.au.> wrote in message
news:IFBRe.18873$FA3.16668@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> First DSLR would it be worth spending extra to buy a 8mp compared to a 6mp
> ?
> Does it make that big of a difference? That is the only reason I would buy
> one over the other.
> (canon eos350D or Pentax istdl)
>
>
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 11:49:15 AM

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

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4316fa29$0$63620$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net...

> I think the main difference 8.0MP buys you is the flexibility to do more
> cropping. This is useful during the digital darkroom exercises, but in
> general, I prefer to spend less time there. So, I try as best as I can
> to frame the picture in the viewfinder the way I want my final image to
> appear. So, I chose my camera based upon functionality and not MP
> (which is just a masculine schlong comparison for most people anyway).

I read somewhere that not all pixels are equal, in that some cameras have
larger pixels than others. For example, why hasn't Nikon gone to 8MP SLR's?
I think they are still producing 6MP, but some say that 6 "large" MP are
equivalent to at least 8 or 12 MP of "smaller" MP? Can anyone verify or
explain this claim?

For my money, I would never buy 6MP if an equivalent 8MP is available, it
just doesn't make sense. I so often want to enlarge just a portion of a
picture, then every pixel counts. I just can't understand Nikon's marketing
approach by sticking with 6MP, they must be losing huge numbers of sales to
the 8MP SLRs?
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 11:49:16 AM

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

"Gary L T" <garylt@it.net> wrote in message news:43175b3c@clear.net.nz...
>
> For my money, I would never buy 6MP if an equivalent 8MP is available, it
> just doesn't make sense. I so often want to enlarge just a portion of a
> picture, then every pixel counts. I just can't understand Nikon's
> marketing approach by sticking with 6MP, they must be losing huge numbers
> of sales to the 8MP SLRs?

That may have something to do with 'noise', cramming more pixels on to a
sensor seems to create more noise. Canon would appear to be the company with
this issue under control hence them leading the way.
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 11:49:16 AM

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

Gary L T <garylt@it.net> wrote:
>
> I read somewhere that not all pixels are equal, in that some cameras have
> larger pixels than others. For example, why hasn't Nikon gone to 8MP SLR's?
> I think they are still producing 6MP, but some say that 6 "large" MP are
> equivalent to at least 8 or 12 MP of "smaller" MP? Can anyone verify or
> explain this claim?
>

It has to do with noise. Smaller pixels tend to be noiser, but it is a
generalization.

> For my money, I would never buy 6MP if an equivalent 8MP is available, it
> just doesn't make sense. I so often want to enlarge just a portion of a
> picture, then every pixel counts. I just can't understand Nikon's marketing
> approach by sticking with 6MP, they must be losing huge numbers of sales to
> the 8MP SLRs?
>

There is more to buying an SLR than comparing how big your megapixels
are to your those of your best buds. Pissing contests are rigged in
favor of the largest number, but really, what is important is what you
can do with it. Don't you think? If you want "big" megapixels, stick
to the point and shoots and you get them for cheap.

As far as Nikon and sticking with 6MP goes. I suspect one reason is
cost. I am sure that the 6.1MP CCD is cheaper than the 8.0MP CMOS and
that leave money to put into other features of the camera. Spot
metering was in the D70 from the get go. Any 6MP Canon cameras with
Spot metering for equivalent price? Also, I believe Nikon is intending
on potentially moving to another sensor platform, perhaps CMOS, perhaps
not, and until they get that worked out, I suspect they won't be
changing much of anything.


--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 3:36:57 PM

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

"Larry Lynch" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d81390aea48edf798969f@newsgroups.comcast.net...

> As a person who shoots with both an 8mp camera and a 6mp camera, I dont
> see any GREAT advantage in the slightly larger dimension of the 8mp
> images.. however, cropping is easier but only slightly easier, as the
> larger dimensions arent that much larger.
>
> On any given day I'll shoot with the camera I have in my hand, and give
> not a single thought to the number of pixels. (I thought I would, thats
> why I have two cameras, but it just didnt work out that way).

Three years ago, when I bought a 3MP camera, people said not to worry about
changing to 5MP when it arrived because the difference wouldn't be great.
But I did notice a good improvement with 5MP. So given that the lense
quality is much the same, I would pick a camera with the most megapixels
available unless someone could solidly convince me that the camera with the
lower MP can produce as good a definition on big blowups as the higher MP
camera can. In other words, why buy a Nikon 6 MP in favor of an Olympic E400
8MP SLR, particularly when the Olympus is the only one to my knowledge that
has a dust cleaning arrangement that helps when you are changing lenses
frequently. The size of the MP is a factor to consider also.
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 3:36:58 PM

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

"Gary wrote
>
> Three years ago, when I bought a 3MP camera, people said not to worry
> about changing to 5MP when it arrived because the difference wouldn't be
> great. But I did notice a good improvement with 5MP. .
>
>
I remember similar 3mp vs 5mp debates too a few years back, and as far as
printing larger than 4x6 I'd say those who argued there is little if any
difference were in need of glasses. Sure a good quality 3mp camera is
perfectly fine for 4x6, but after that 5 mp makes a noticeable difference,
and once certain page dimensions are reached point 8 mp makes the same leap
in improvement of print quality.

For those who never print larger than 8x10 they are wasting their time and
money keeping up with the megapixel wars in my opinion. 5 or 6 megapixel is
all they need. For those who never print period they could likely have stuck
with a good 3mg.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 5:18:51 PM

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

Celcius <cosmar@rogers.com> wrote:
> Have you thought about the lens?
> A 6MP with a good lens in my view is more desirable than a 8MP with a run of
> the mill lens. For instance, a Nikon A70 with a very good lens is certainly
> preferable to a Canon Rebel XT with the kit lens. In my view, the number of
> megapixels is only a tiny part of the story.

Absolutely! (BTW, it is a D70, not an A70). I had no old lenses to
help me choose a platform, so I evaluated the XT and the D70 very
closely for more than one month (the XT wasn't out until just before I
bought my D70) before I made the decision on which camera to buy. My
choice was based on the superior kit lens, the superior features in the
D70 (XT had some advantages as well, like better placed autofocus
points) and importantly, I liked the feel of the D70 in my hands far
more than any Rebel I picked up. The 20D fealt decent though.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 5:54:50 PM

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

"Linda Nieuwenstein" <buzzball@REMOVETHIS-allstream.net> wrote in message
news:1sXRe.272$hW.34@tor-nn1...
>
> I remember similar 3mp vs 5mp debates too a few years back, and as far as
> printing larger than 4x6 I'd say those who argued there is little if any
> difference were in need of glasses. Sure a good quality 3mp camera is
> perfectly fine for 4x6, but after that 5 mp makes a noticeable difference,
> and once certain page dimensions are reached point 8 mp makes the same
leap
> in improvement of print quality.
>
> For those who never print larger than 8x10 they are wasting their time and
> money keeping up with the megapixel wars in my opinion. 5 or 6 megapixel
is
> all they need. For those who never print period they could likely have
stuck
> with a good 3mg.
>
> Take care,
> Linda
>
>
Linda,
Sometimes, MP's don't mean much...
My wife has a Canon Powershot S330 with 2MP. We took a trip to Greece
recently as well as Turkey. My Canon Pro1 (8MP) failed me and all we were
left with was my wife's camera. When on a trip, we usually take a picture in
front of an important edifice, be it the Vatican, the Sphinx, or whatever.
We print a 8 x 10 and have it laminated. We have an entire wall of such
laminations. Well, believe it or not, I took my wife's 4 x 6 and "blew it
up" to 8 x 10, using an approach I learned from Scott Kelby. The result is
at (attention, 20 Megs):
http://celestart.com/images/publiques/004_hagia-sophia_...
This was taken by a tourist who obligingly took the photo.
Cheers, Marcel
Anonymous
September 3, 2005 11:53:49 AM

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

"Linda Nieuwenstein" <buzzball@REMOVETHIS-allstream.net> wrote in message
news:1sXRe.272$hW.34@tor-nn1...
>
> "Gary wrote
>>
>> Three years ago, when I bought a 3MP camera, people said not to worry
>> about changing to 5MP when it arrived because the difference wouldn't be
>> great. But I did notice a good improvement with 5MP. .
>>
>>
> I remember similar 3mp vs 5mp debates too a few years back, and as far as
> printing larger than 4x6 I'd say those who argued there is little if any
> difference were in need of glasses. Sure a good quality 3mp camera is
> perfectly fine for 4x6, but after that 5 mp makes a noticeable difference,
> and once certain page dimensions are reached point 8 mp makes the same
> leap in improvement of print quality.
>
> For those who never print larger than 8x10 they are wasting their time and
> money keeping up with the megapixel wars in my opinion. 5 or 6 megapixel
> is all they need. For those who never print period they could likely have
> stuck with a good 3mg.

Most people will from time to time take photos of groups of people and then
find that say, one of the 5 or 6 people in the photo would like an
enlargement of just their picture, because it is a particularly good one.
Now this type of situation is where the more megapixels you have, the better
the blow-up of part of a picture will be. But I have to admit that I do have
several A3 framed photos on sale that sell well and that were only taken
with a 3MP camera. So if you are printing the WHOLE of the original picture,
a 5MP camera (and even a 3MP one) will produce good A3 enlargements,
particularly if printed on a top of the line printer. Another thing to think
about is the size of the optical zoom, the higher this is, the better it may
be for getting sharp pics of distant objects IMHO.

Cheers, Gary
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 2:00:26 PM

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

"Celcius" wrote
> Well, believe it or not, I took my wife's 4 x 6 and "blew it
> up" to 8 x 10, using an approach I learned from Scott Kelby. The result is
> at (attention, 20 Megs):
> http://celestart.com/images/publiques/004_hagia-sophia_...
> This was taken by a tourist who obligingly took the photo.
> Cheers, Marcel
>

Hi Marcel,

I am still on dialup (not highspeed lines here yet, plus I don't browse or
download often so don't really need it) and that 20megs is rather too large.
Is there a way to do a screen capture of the image and then post that as a
compressed .jpg as one does with regular photos? Of is the 2megs leaving too
little room for compression?

I do want to say that what's important is that the shot and camera make you
the owner happy. Consumers in North America, Asia, and Europe (to a lesser
degree on other continents) often seem to go for much more than they
actually need or will ever use. The the marketplace counts on [and plays up
to the fullest] that weakness in the consumer conscience by convincing us
only the biggest, best, and most expensive will do. A deal is not really a
deal, its just less of a rip off than the other ripoff choices available to
us. I find the digital camera market a huge ripoff even with dSLR being down
to $1,000. They're still not worth that when all is said and done, and no
fixed lens is worth anywhere near that price.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 2:20:58 PM

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

"Gary L T" wrote >
> But I have to admit that I do have several A3 framed photos on sale that
> sell well and that were only taken with a 3MP camera. So if you are
> printing the WHOLE of the original picture, a 5MP camera (and even a 3MP
> one) will produce good A3 enlargements, particularly if printed on a top
> of the line printer. Another thing to think about is the size of the
> optical zoom, the higher this is, the better it may be for getting sharp
> pics of distant objects IMHO.
>

I can relate to your points. I still have a good 3mp (my first camera) and
much to my surprise a photographer friend of mine who owns a gallery (brick
and mortar one) asked if he could display some of my photos. Mind you he
used the original RAW files and prepped and printed using commercial [pro]
equipment, including high quality paper, matting and framing. I was quite in
awe at how much nicer my beginner shots looked after they were all shined up
(I then used a cheap inkjet and regular photo papers and inks). All of the
photos sold in no time flat. It taught me a good lesson about being weary of
buying into the megapixel game and instead looking at other aspects of the
camera as well as the after shot equipment. I've since witnessed that more
megapixels [up to a certain point] does help when printing large prints, but
I also know the highest mp camera with the best lens in the world can result
in disappointing prints if the printer, paper and inks being used are
low-end consumer grade.

Will I be buying a 12mp camera any time soon? Nope, not unless I plan to
purchase the professional print press at $3000+++++ lol.

Take care,
Linda
September 5, 2005 11:27:50 AM

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

"Linda Nieuwenstein" <buzzball@REMOVETHIS-allstream.net> wrote in message
news:RwCSe.316$hW.301@tor-nn1...
>
> "Gary L T" wrote >
> > But I have to admit that I do have several A3 framed photos on sale
that
> > sell well and that were only taken with a 3MP camera. So if you are
> > printing the WHOLE of the original picture, a 5MP camera (and even a 3MP
> > one) will produce good A3 enlargements, particularly if printed on a top
> > of the line printer. Another thing to think about is the size of the
> > optical zoom, the higher this is, the better it may be for getting sharp
> > pics of distant objects IMHO.
> >
>
> I can relate to your points. I still have a good 3mp (my first camera) and
> much to my surprise a photographer friend of mine who owns a gallery
(brick
> and mortar one) asked if he could display some of my photos. Mind you he
> used the original RAW files and prepped and printed using commercial [pro]
> equipment, including high quality paper, matting and framing. I was quite
in
> awe at how much nicer my beginner shots looked after they were all shined
up
> (I then used a cheap inkjet and regular photo papers and inks). All of the
> photos sold in no time flat. It taught me a good lesson about being weary
of
> buying into the megapixel game and instead looking at other aspects of the
> camera as well as the after shot equipment. I've since witnessed that more
> megapixels [up to a certain point] does help when printing large prints,
but
> I also know the highest mp camera with the best lens in the world can
result
> in disappointing prints if the printer, paper and inks being used are
> low-end consumer grade.
>
> Will I be buying a 12mp camera any time soon? Nope, not unless I plan to
> purchase the professional print press at $3000+++++ lol.
>
> Take care,
> Linda
>
Sounds fair to me I think I may go for the cheaper 6mp and go on from there.
The pentax comes with a sigma lens which I suppose is better than the canon
stock...
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 2:35:41 PM

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

"Peter" wrote>
> Sounds fair to me I think I may go for the cheaper 6mp and go on from
> there.
> The pentax comes with a sigma lens which I suppose is better than the
> canon
> stock...
>

Hi Peter,

Yes the argument is fair. It includes looking beyond megapixel because in
many respects that is just a marketing game played on us. With that in mind,
forget the megapixels of the Pentax and Rebel 350/XT for a minute and start
comparing from there. Look at all other features, plus look at brand history
track record.

This site allows you to do a side-by-side comparision of brands and models.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sidebyside.asp

I'm not sure if the pre-selected comparison will work but below is the link
incase it does. If not use the above link and just select the Rebel and *ist
yourself.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method...

The short version of the above is:
http://tinyurl.com/9rdqf

I added the Canon Rebel 300 (the model before the Rebel XT) because it is
still a great entry level dSLR at really reduced prices over its original
price. You could save $200 and invest that in a better lense than the kit
lens for example, or invest it towards a second lens.

Also on that site make sure to look at user reviews of both (the user link
is available from the top of the comparison spec table per model). And
finally make sure to read the reviews of each model because Phil considers
every aspect of each camera not just the 'marketing ploy features' by the
companies. It appears that no review has been completed yet for the Pentax
*ist DL. Waiting may be a good idea. Sometimes if the spects are not up to
par the companies are slow to get a working production model to the
reviewers so that no negative info can get out there. If none of the other
review sites have been provided with a production or even pre-production
unit yet I'd sit tight and not rush to purchase. Once reviews are available
you will be more confident in your buying decision.

Phil does have a full review of the previous model the *istDL though:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxistds/

Normally cameras do not get worse than their predecessor. They may not get
any better, or they may get much better. Phil puts it as 'Recommended' which
is below his "Highly Recommended" rated, but above the "Average" rating.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxistds/page24.asp


I hope this helps to give you more to look at to help make your decision.
Also try the other review sites as some of them may have reviewed the new
*istDS already, but try to make sure you only use legit review sites. Phil
has a couple listed on his site:
http://www.dpreview.com/misc/links.asp


Take care, and happy shopping!
Linda
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 6:41:42 PM

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

Gary L T wrote:
> "Larry Lynch" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d81390aea48edf798969f@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>
>
>>As a person who shoots with both an 8mp camera and a 6mp camera, I dont
>>see any GREAT advantage in the slightly larger dimension of the 8mp
>>images.. however, cropping is easier but only slightly easier, as the
>>larger dimensions arent that much larger.
>>
>>On any given day I'll shoot with the camera I have in my hand, and give
>>not a single thought to the number of pixels. (I thought I would, thats
>>why I have two cameras, but it just didnt work out that way).
>
>
> Three years ago, when I bought a 3MP camera, people said not to worry about
> changing to 5MP when it arrived because the difference wouldn't be great.
> But I did notice a good improvement with 5MP.

3->5 is a 66% increase in total pixels, and a 30% in resolution.
6->8 gives 33%, 15% respectively.

BugBear
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 6:41:43 PM

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

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 14:41:42 +0100, bugbear
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:

>Gary L T wrote:
>> "Larry Lynch" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1d81390aea48edf798969f@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>>
>>
>>>As a person who shoots with both an 8mp camera and a 6mp camera, I dont
>>>see any GREAT advantage in the slightly larger dimension of the 8mp
>>>images.. however, cropping is easier but only slightly easier, as the
>>>larger dimensions arent that much larger.
>>>
>>>On any given day I'll shoot with the camera I have in my hand, and give
>>>not a single thought to the number of pixels. (I thought I would, thats
>>>why I have two cameras, but it just didnt work out that way).
>>
>>
>> Three years ago, when I bought a 3MP camera, people said not to worry about
>> changing to 5MP when it arrived because the difference wouldn't be great.
>> But I did notice a good improvement with 5MP.
>
>3->5 is a 66% increase in total pixels, and a 30% in resolution.
>6->8 gives 33%, 15% respectively.
>
> BugBear

Yeah, but it *feels* so good!
:-)
That's what marketing is all about.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 6:43:21 PM

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

Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
> Yes the argument is fair. It includes looking beyond megapixel because in
> many respects that is just a marketing game played on us.

Yes - evem by the "proper" brands.

But there are some truly horrible
cameras out there with high pixel counts.
Often on QVC or similar :-)

BugBear
September 5, 2005 10:53:54 PM

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

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 07:27:50 GMT, "Peter" <Lopy@dj.com.au.> wrote:

>
>"Linda Nieuwenstein" <buzzball@REMOVETHIS-allstream.net> wrote in message
>news:RwCSe.316$hW.301@tor-nn1...
>>
>> "Gary L T" wrote >
>> > But I have to admit that I do have several A3 framed photos on sale
>that
>> > sell well and that were only taken with a 3MP camera. So if you are
>> > printing the WHOLE of the original picture, a 5MP camera (and even a 3MP
>> > one) will produce good A3 enlargements, particularly if printed on a top
>> > of the line printer. Another thing to think about is the size of the
>> > optical zoom, the higher this is, the better it may be for getting sharp
>> > pics of distant objects IMHO.
>> >
>>
>> I can relate to your points. I still have a good 3mp (my first camera) and
>> much to my surprise a photographer friend of mine who owns a gallery
>(brick
>> and mortar one) asked if he could display some of my photos. Mind you he
>> used the original RAW files and prepped and printed using commercial [pro]
>> equipment, including high quality paper, matting and framing. I was quite
>in
>> awe at how much nicer my beginner shots looked after they were all shined
>up
>> (I then used a cheap inkjet and regular photo papers and inks). All of the
>> photos sold in no time flat. It taught me a good lesson about being weary
>of
>> buying into the megapixel game and instead looking at other aspects of the
>> camera as well as the after shot equipment. I've since witnessed that more
>> megapixels [up to a certain point] does help when printing large prints,
>but
>> I also know the highest mp camera with the best lens in the world can
>result
>> in disappointing prints if the printer, paper and inks being used are
>> low-end consumer grade.
>>
>> Will I be buying a 12mp camera any time soon? Nope, not unless I plan to
>> purchase the professional print press at $3000+++++ lol.
>>
>> Take care,
>> Linda
>>
>Sounds fair to me I think I may go for the cheaper 6mp and go on from there.
>The pentax comes with a sigma lens which I suppose is better than the canon
>stock...
>

Take 8 meg camera. Shoot picture. Back zoom off by 15% (so image
area of the original picture now contains only 6 meg pixels). Shoot
another picture. Compare them.
-Rich
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 5:00:23 AM

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

"bugbear" wrote
> But there are some truly horrible
> cameras out there with high pixel counts.
> Often on QVC or similar :-)
>

I'm not sure what QVC is, but I have read reviews that support what you are
saying about some horrible high mp cameras. In fact I read one review that
said though the camera toted itself as a 10mp (not certain on the 10mp
exactly, but the mp was high) that in fact it was only interpolated. The
sensor was only a 3 or 4 megapixel without software interpolation. Geesh
what a marketing rip.

Take care,
Linda
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 5:09:16 AM

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

"bugbear" wrote
> 3->5 is a 66% increase in total pixels, and a 30% in resolution.
> 6->8 gives 33%, 15% respectively.
>

30% increase in resolution will make a clear 'visual' difference in prints.

Thanks for the figures.

Take care,
Linda.
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 12:56:28 PM

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

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 01:00:23 -0300, "Linda Nieuwenstein"
<buzzball@REMOVETHIS-allstream.net> wrote:

>
>"bugbear" wrote
>> But there are some truly horrible
>> cameras out there with high pixel counts.
>> Often on QVC or similar :-)
>>
>
>I'm not sure what QVC is, but I have read reviews that support what you are
>saying about some horrible high mp cameras. In fact I read one review that
>said though the camera toted itself as a 10mp (not certain on the 10mp
>exactly, but the mp was high) that in fact it was only interpolated. The
>sensor was only a 3 or 4 megapixel without software interpolation. Geesh
>what a marketing rip.
>
>Take care,
>Linda
>
The Sigma SDx line uses a 3.4MP sensor, and interpolates to 10+MP.
Maybe that's what you're thinking of.

QVC is a shopping channel.
--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 2:28:58 PM

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

Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
> "bugbear" wrote
>
>>But there are some truly horrible
>>cameras out there with high pixel counts.
>>Often on QVC or similar :-)
>>
>
>
> I'm not sure what QVC is,

It's a google search :-)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=qvc&btnG=Google+Se...

> but I have read reviews that support what you are
> saying about some horrible high mp cameras. In fact I read one review that
> said though the camera toted itself as a 10mp (not certain on the 10mp
> exactly, but the mp was high) that in fact it was only interpolated. The
> sensor was only a 3 or 4 megapixel without software interpolation. Geesh
> what a marketing rip.

Yep. My point exactly.

BugBear
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 2:32:18 PM

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

Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
> "bugbear" wrote
>
>>3->5 is a 66% increase in total pixels, and a 30% in resolution.
>>6->8 gives 33%, 15% respectively.
>>
>
>
> 30% increase in resolution will make a clear 'visual' difference in prints.
>

Yeah, but 15% might not. In other words, just because 5 Mp was
clearly better that 3Mp, it doesn't follow that 8Mp will
be clearly better than 6Mp, even though in both
case there is a difference of 2Mp.

> Thanks for the figures.

If people want to make their own figures,
the correct comparison is sqrt(bigNum/smallNum)

BugBear
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 2:32:19 PM

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

bugbear wrote:
> Linda Nieuwenstein wrote:
>> "bugbear" wrote
>>
>>> 3->5 is a 66% increase in total pixels, and a 30% in resolution.
>>> 6->8 gives 33%, 15% respectively.
>>>
>>
>>
>> 30% increase in resolution will make a clear 'visual' difference in
>> prints.
>
> Yeah, but 15% might not. In other words, just because 5 Mp was
> clearly better that 3Mp, it doesn't follow that 8Mp will
> be clearly better than 6Mp, even though in both
> case there is a difference of 2Mp.
>
>> Thanks for the figures.
>
> If people want to make their own figures,
> the correct comparison is sqrt(bigNum/smallNum)
>
> BugBear

Whether 30% improvement in resolution is visible depends on how close the
resolution of the print is to the limiting resolution of the observer,
i.e. how close you hold the print to your face.

David
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 8:09:36 PM

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

So if you're just out taking pictures with no specific plan in mind for
printing etc., what size image do most people use as their default?
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 8:09:37 PM

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

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 16:09:36 -0500, "Wilbur Fry"
<jim@nospam.purdue.edu> wrote:

>So if you're just out taking pictures with no specific plan in mind for
>printing etc., what size image do most people use as their default?
>
The biggest and best quality.
You just don't know when you start out which pic you shoot that day
will be the one that is worthy of the best you can do, so you do the
best for all of them. Often the one special shot is a snapshot, not
one where you have the time to fiddle with size and quality settings.
It's much easier to crop, trim, downsize, etc., than it is to upsize,
add missed detail, etc.
If this is more than your cards can handle, well, maybe it's time to
rethink your budget or your plans. :-)

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 2:18:31 PM

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

Although I agree with Bill in principle, I have often found that I simply
couldn't do that based on the memory cards I had and the time I had to
strech it to.

For example if you are on a one week holiday with a 512 MB card you are
going to fill it pretty quick if you shoot RAW (or even high quality).

In these instances I usually switch to medium or even low res (which is
still plenty of res for small photo sized printouts).

I only change up to a higher res on the pictures I really want to be good
(I.E. The family reunion shot for the first time in five years)

This is not as troublesome these days when you can get your memory card
burn't onto a CD for a few pound but still worth noting.

On the other hand if you are on a day trip with the same card then shoot
away on RAW.

Work out the best compromise between quality and quantity.


"Bill Funk" <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote in message
news:8f1sh11atkbhkla6etg79u4irj36rbqptp@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 16:09:36 -0500, "Wilbur Fry"
> <jim@nospam.purdue.edu> wrote:
>
>>So if you're just out taking pictures with no specific plan in mind for
>>printing etc., what size image do most people use as their default?
>>
> The biggest and best quality.
> You just don't know when you start out which pic you shoot that day
> will be the one that is worthy of the best you can do, so you do the
> best for all of them. Often the one special shot is a snapshot, not
> one where you have the time to fiddle with size and quality settings.
> It's much easier to crop, trim, downsize, etc., than it is to upsize,
> add missed detail, etc.
> If this is more than your cards can handle, well, maybe it's time to
> rethink your budget or your plans. :-)
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> Replace "g" with "a"
> funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 2:18:32 PM

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

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 10:18:31 +0100, "John Ortt"
<johnortt@noemailsuppliedasdontwantspam.com> wrote:

>Although I agree with Bill in principle, I have often found that I simply
>couldn't do that based on the memory cards I had and the time I had to
>strech it to.
>
>For example if you are on a one week holiday with a 512 MB card you are
>going to fill it pretty quick if you shoot RAW (or even high quality).
>
>In these instances I usually switch to medium or even low res (which is
>still plenty of res for small photo sized printouts).
>
>I only change up to a higher res on the pictures I really want to be good
>(I.E. The family reunion shot for the first time in five years)
>
>This is not as troublesome these days when you can get your memory card
>burn't onto a CD for a few pound but still worth noting.
>
>On the other hand if you are on a day trip with the same card then shoot
>away on RAW.
>
>Work out the best compromise between quality and quantity.

And that's what I said.
You either adjust your budget (buy more cards, which evidently you
don't want to do), or adjust you plans (which is what you do; accept
lower quality images).
This is just reality, it's certainly not "bad."
And, as you say, it's a compromise. Most things are.
>
>
>"Bill Funk" <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote in message
>news:8f1sh11atkbhkla6etg79u4irj36rbqptp@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 16:09:36 -0500, "Wilbur Fry"
>> <jim@nospam.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>So if you're just out taking pictures with no specific plan in mind for
>>>printing etc., what size image do most people use as their default?
>>>
>> The biggest and best quality.
>> You just don't know when you start out which pic you shoot that day
>> will be the one that is worthy of the best you can do, so you do the
>> best for all of them. Often the one special shot is a snapshot, not
>> one where you have the time to fiddle with size and quality settings.
>> It's much easier to crop, trim, downsize, etc., than it is to upsize,
>> add missed detail, etc.
>> If this is more than your cards can handle, well, maybe it's time to
>> rethink your budget or your plans. :-)
>>
>> --
>> Bill Funk
>> Replace "g" with "a"
>> funktionality.blogspot.com
>

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 4:06:16 PM

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

John Ortt <johnortt@noemailsuppliedasdontwantspam.com> wrote:
> Although I agree with Bill in principle, I have often found that I simply
> couldn't do that based on the memory cards I had and the time I had to
> strech it to.
>
> For example if you are on a one week holiday with a 512 MB card you are
> going to fill it pretty quick if you shoot RAW (or even high quality).
>
> In these instances I usually switch to medium or even low res (which is
> still plenty of res for small photo sized printouts).
>
> I only change up to a higher res on the pictures I really want to be good
> (I.E. The family reunion shot for the first time in five years)
>
> This is not as troublesome these days when you can get your memory card
> burn't onto a CD for a few pound but still worth noting.
>
> On the other hand if you are on a day trip with the same card then shoot
> away on RAW.
>
> Work out the best compromise between quality and quantity.
>
>

The best compromise is to buy more memory so that you do not need to
compromise. It is not expensive. I paid $90 for a 1GB Sandisk Pro
Extreme II Compact Flash card.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 7:27:18 PM

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

> The best compromise is to buy more memory so that you do not need to
> compromise.

Wrong, that compromises my ability to pay the bills.......bad compromise!

> It is not expensive. I paid $90 for a 1GB Sandisk Pro
> Extreme II Compact Flash card.

It is extremely expensive if you don't have $90!
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 7:27:19 PM

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

John Ortt <johnortt@noemailsuppliedasdontwantspam.com> wrote:
>> It is not expensive. I paid $90 for a 1GB Sandisk Pro
>> Extreme II Compact Flash card.
>
> It is extremely expensive if you don't have $90!
>

I have to wonder about your ability to pay for a DSLR in the first
place.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 9:16:14 PM

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

>>> It is not expensive. I paid $90 for a 1GB Sandisk Pro
>>> Extreme II Compact Flash card.
>>
>> It is extremely expensive if you don't have $90!
>>
>
> I have to wonder about your ability to pay for a DSLR in the first
> place.

Why? What are you suggesting....that I stole it?!

Just because I have $1000 to buy the camera does not automatically mean I
have $1090 to buy the camera and memory.

Maybe I saved up a long time to be able to afford it.

The beauty of SLR's is you can upgrade them as and when you have the money
but in the meantime you can still take excellent shots.

I do not believe they should be viewed as an elitist club only for the
wealthy!
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 9:16:32 PM

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

John Ortt <johnortt@noemailsuppliedasdontwantspam.com> wrote:
>
> Why? What are you suggesting....that I stole it?!
>

No no, nothing so vile. I am just suggesting that you really can not
afford it. The fact is that you need more than a camera body to compose
photographs. If you are planning a vacation and would use a camera such
as this, you need to make basic preparations. Case, memory card,
proper lenses, filters, etc. If you can't afford the basics, then I
think you have purchased out of your monetary comfort zone.

Really, it wasn't a negative comment towards you per se, but rather
indicative of more restrictive problem. Your questions surround a
vacation and limitted memory. The answers do not seem to be
fulfilling, and the reason is that the solid fulfilling answer is that
you have more storage on hand.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
!