>Tom, as I have said before, a steady diet of printing for others has >convinced me that megapixels >are worthless as a baseline quality >measurement once you get up above five. Please, if you have ?>experience >to the contrary, share it.
Isn't this, in some respects related to the size of the print though? Granted, we don't print all our images at 16 X 20 or larger. More pixels should equal more resolution and smoother gradation. One might not see it with smaller print sizes. One would not see much difference between 35mm film or 4x5 film when making a 4X6 print. If what you say is true across the board, then why on earth are there 8, 10, 12, 16MP cameras out there, not to mention the MF backs? The industry is not designing higher MP sensors and cameras that use them because there is *no benefit*. > >As to why they would discontinue the DL in favour of the K110D, the new >camera is both better and shares common parts with the other new camera. >Why, given these facts would they keep th DL in production? And why would >they drop a DL equivalent from the line when it makes money for them? What I'm saying is that it seems a 6MP DLSR is destined to go the same way as the 2-3 MP P&S cameras. I was talking to the perception they are creating. Let's face it. If Pentax were so smart in all their marketing and product development decisions, they likely wouldn't be down around the bottom of the pack when it comes to market share. This is a different issue than whether you or I personally like their product at the moment. Tom > >-Aaron > >-----Original Message----- > >From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subj: Re: K110D - Why bother? >Date: Fri Aug 11, 2006 1:23 pm >Size: 1K >To: pdml@pdml.net > >I'm stating that Pentax having released, what, 4 different 6MP DLSR's in >the >last 3 years, why release another (2, one with Anti-shake and one w/o)? It >seems like they are repeating the P&S approach they were abandoning and >positioning themselves at the bottom of the market (at least >perception-wise). > >Who can contend that a higher pixel count is not the way the industry has >been moving and that all other things being equal, that MP is the baseline >measure of potential image quality? > > > >Tom C. > >"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or >numbered." > > > > > > > > >From: Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> > >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> > >Subject: Re: K110D - Why bother? > >Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:55:22 -0400 > > > > > >On Aug 11, 2006, at 11:53 AM, Tom C wrote: > > > > > What evidence is their out there, however that any of the *latest* > > > generation of DSLR's has a serious noise problem? > > > >Which ones, Tom? And I'm not saying that it's a "serious problem" or > >even that it's particularly terrible, just that more megapixels are not > >an automatic advantage. Remember, you're the one saying that the > >latest Pentax release is a very bad idea. > > > >-Aaron > > > >-- > >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >PDML@pdml.net > >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
