On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 10:12 +1100, Digital Image Studio wrote: > On 07/12/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Actually, it seems to be best "price-to-features" ratio. One of my > > private clients whom I tutor recently bought her first digital camera - > > without consulting me. She ended up with a 4 megapixel Canon. She could > > have afforded one with More Megapixels [TM], but she (or the salesman > > who sold her the camera) gave more weight to features and the ability > > to fit more shots on any given memory card. I really have seen plenty > > of people buying cameras this way and I've noticed even Best Buy > > salesdroids telling people that they shouldn't necessarily buy because > > of pixel count. The cynic in me suspects this sales tactic is probably > > a ploy to appear more expert than they really are, but it's certainly > > happening. The image quality of many 10-megapixel p-n-s cameras is so > > poor that they just can't hide the truth much longer. > > Yes I suspect 10MP in P&S will be the break point. And I have heard a > sales person argue that a high MP P^S wasn't necessary, the gist of > the argument was that even a large print can't hold that many colours > :-)
The optimist in me hopes that your friend found a sales person who actually genuinely cared that she got the product best for her purpose. The cynic in me thinks that maybe that camera had an rewards program attached to the sale for the salesperson. Back when I was a drone in the camera retail industry, manufacturer spiffs were commonplace and would sway some less scrupulous sales person's recommendation to a customer as to what camera would be the best for them. Are spiffs still common in camera retail? Michael Chan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
