TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras

Some may find this interesting?

http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/


E.





.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

In article >,
"Episteme" > wrote:

> Some may find this interesting?
>
> http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/
>
>
> E.

I think he's right. I use a 5 MP camera and have made very good-looking
18x24 prints with it.

Dave

In article >,
"Episteme" > wrote:

> Some may find this interesting?
>
> http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/
>
>
> E.

I think he's right. I use a 5 MP camera and have made very good-looking
18x24 prints with it.

Dave

"Episteme" > wrote i
> Some may find this interesting?
>
> http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/


It sure does show how things are not simple and straight forward.

Ron

"Episteme" > wrote i
> Some may find this interesting?
>
> http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/


It sure does show how things are not simple and straight forward.

Ron

"guest" > wrote in message
...
> "Episteme" > wrote i
>> Some may find this interesting?
>>
>> http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/
>
>
> It sure does show how things are not simple and straight forward.
>
> Ron

Actually - no, it doesn't. Not very well. Wasn't a very well-run test.

Try this: Static subject, same lighting, same exposure, same lens - not
just the same model, but the SAME lens - and then hook to that lens, in
turn, a Digital Rebel (6MP) Rebel XT (8.2MP) Rebel XTi (10.7MP) 5d (12.5MP)
and 1Ds MkII (16.7MP). Then, print both an 8x10 and 20x24 from all 5
sources - on the BEST printer you can find. THEN, crop the center quarter
of those images & blow that crop up to both 8x10 & 16x20. THEN, let's see
if you can tell the difference between chips. As much else being equal as
we can manage. I'd really like to see the results of that test. I'd be
willing to bet you could tell which shot came off which chip. ESPECIALLY
the cropped shots. Just for fun - take an EOS 1 with a roll of Velvia or
Kodachrome in it & take the same shot.

Sounds like an interesting experiment to me.

Who's up for it?

-Kevin in Indy {Recently traded a Minolta X-700 for a Canon 30D}

"guest" > wrote in message
...
> "Episteme" > wrote i
>> Some may find this interesting?
>>
>> http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/
>
>
> It sure does show how things are not simple and straight forward.
>
> Ron

Actually - no, it doesn't. Not very well. Wasn't a very well-run test.

Try this: Static subject, same lighting, same exposure, same lens - not
just the same model, but the SAME lens - and then hook to that lens, in
turn, a Digital Rebel (6MP) Rebel XT (8.2MP) Rebel XTi (10.7MP) 5d (12.5MP)
and 1Ds MkII (16.7MP). Then, print both an 8x10 and 20x24 from all 5
sources - on the BEST printer you can find. THEN, crop the center quarter
of those images & blow that crop up to both 8x10 & 16x20. THEN, let's see
if you can tell the difference between chips. As much else being equal as
we can manage. I'd really like to see the results of that test. I'd be
willing to bet you could tell which shot came off which chip. ESPECIALLY
the cropped shots. Just for fun - take an EOS 1 with a roll of Velvia or
Kodachrome in it & take the same shot.

Sounds like an interesting experiment to me.

Who's up for it?

-Kevin in Indy {Recently traded a Minolta X-700 for a Canon 30D}

Episteme wrote:
> Some may find this interesting?
>
> http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/
>
>
> E.


Yeah, well, Pogue's test doesn't prove what he claims it proves, since
he used resized images from the same camera, instead of images from
three different cameras. So he actually tested the resizing software and
the printer quality, not the camera resolution. But using three
different cameras wouldn't prove much either, since they would also
differ in lenses, in exposure calculation software/hardware, and in CCD
quality.

The only valid test answers the question: Does this camera enable you to
do what you want to with it? Megapixel count is only one factor to
consider, and even though Pogue's test is invalid, it does make a valid
point: higher megapixel counts don't mean much for the vast majority of
people.

Actually, the fact that most cameras come with several resolution
settings, defaulted to the worst so that "you can take up 160 pictures"
causes more disappointment than anything else.

HTH

Episteme wrote:
> Some may find this interesting?
>
> http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/
>
>
> E.


Yeah, well, Pogue's test doesn't prove what he claims it proves, since
he used resized images from the same camera, instead of images from
three different cameras. So he actually tested the resizing software and
the printer quality, not the camera resolution. But using three
different cameras wouldn't prove much either, since they would also
differ in lenses, in exposure calculation software/hardware, and in CCD
quality.

The only valid test answers the question: Does this camera enable you to
do what you want to with it? Megapixel count is only one factor to
consider, and even though Pogue's test is invalid, it does make a valid
point: higher megapixel counts don't mean much for the vast majority of
people.

Actually, the fact that most cameras come with several resolution
settings, defaulted to the worst so that "you can take up 160 pictures"
causes more disappointment than anything else.

HTH

Dave Moorman wrote:
> In article >,
> "Episteme" > wrote:
>
>> Some may find this interesting?
>>
>> http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/
>>
>>
>> E.
>
> I think he's right. I use a 5 MP camera and have made very good-looking
> 18x24 prints with it.
>
> Dave

Sorry, Dave, but you didn't make the print with your camera, but with
your printer. That's not a quibble. The printer received imaging data
from your imaging software and translated it into data it could use to
print that 18x24 image. These two elements in the process have a lot to
do with how well your prints turned out. Fact is that up to a point
smoothing algorithms can compensate for the limited information in a
small image file. Your printer software is built to do just that, since
it's designed to make larger than usual prints.

You will find that if you print an image with very small detail (such as
the leaves of trees in the background) that the limitations of the 5MP
camera (and its lens as well) will begin to show. But since we rarely
look at a picture with a magnifying glass, these limitations will
usually not affect the appearance of the image "at normal viewing
distance". You will still have a pleasing print, so enjoy!

HTH