Nice pic, Godfrey. Did you also take the massive, rusty foghorn?
POA, presumably, stands for Point of Ayre, the windswept Northernmost
point of the Isle of Man. It's a dangerous spot; roaring tides, hazardous
waste, and man-eating terns beset the unwary traveller at every step.
John
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:25:59 +0100, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
My experience mirrors yours, Paul. I can easily see the difference
between an FA35/2 and the FA20-35/4, and both are very good performers.
I can also see the difference with a less capable performer like the
F100-300 or A28/2.8.
How can manufacturers sell bodies that are spec'ed better than we need?
Simple: add features, add higher quality expectations, and market them.
That's all. I've seen some amazing work produced from a Canon D30 with
'only' 3Mpixel resolution. I've been complimented by knowledgeable
critics on work from Minox 8x11 negatives scanned at 2820 ppi that means
only *1 Mpixel* resolution.
6Mpixel (5Mpixel typically after cropping and sizing) does well for 99%
of the photography I see.
8-10 Mpixel, for the size range of prints I normally make, is way more
than enough but gives additional room for cropping and adjustment. It's
value increases as you move to shorter, wider field of view lenses. It
would be nice, it's not essential.
Without using a tripod, more degradation in image quality is due to
camera movement than lack of pixels. For instance:
http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/IoM-4/PoA-lighthouse-0730usFR.jpg
That's taken with a Panasonic FZ10 on a tripod... 4Mpixel itty-bitty-
sensor camera with an ultrazoom lens. Unretouched, just straightened and
cropped. Prints to a beautiful 11x14, framed out to 16x20 or 20x24.
The vast majority of photographers never exploit the full capabilities
of their equipment.
Godfrey
On Oct 27, 2005, at 3:33 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I can see the difference in my *ist D prints from the FA 35/2 vs. the
DA16-45/4. The latter show excellent resolution in 12 x 18 size, the
former are superb. Wearing my most powerful reading glasses and
examining the prints at a distance that is far closer than that from
which they would normally be displayed, the difference is discernible.
Based on this very unscientific experiment, I would have to say that
the D can take advantage of better lenses. I'm sure you can come up
with some mathematics that belies that, but the physical evidence says
otherwise.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
