Furthermore, take a look at this: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond2x/page24.asp
Is the 12mpixeks Nikon D2X vs Canon's 17.2mpixels EOS-1Ds Mark II FF There are obviously other factors to consider, but resolution-wise, at low ISOs you'll see there can't be to much difference in a web-size image, only in a print. On 5/10/07, Fernando Terrazzino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My point is that the advantage of a larger sensor is less noise and > the ability to print at a larger size (more mpixels), so unless you > need the clean high ISO I doubt that you can tell the difference > between downsized images for the web coming from a FF camera and a > APS-C camera, any extra resolution advantage is lost in the downsizing > process, don't you think? Otherwise I don't understand why you want a > FF size sensor? Maybe the difference that you are seen have to do with > glass and postprocessing? > > On 5/10/07, Brendan MacRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- Fernando Terrazzino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Here is an idea that I never tried, take a raw photo > > > with the k10d, > > > process as 10Mb, 6Mb and 2Mb. Downsize every jpeg to > > > half the size of > > > the 2Mb photo. See any difference? > > > > > > No, I haven't done that either. But why would I? > > Wouldn't that only show relative resolutions at > > different quailities of the same sensor? I need to get > > a hold of a camera with a different sensor and run it > > through it's paces and see if I notice a difference. > > > > -Brendan > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/10/07, Brendan MacRae > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 10, 2007, at 3:01 AM, Brendan MacRae > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I talk to him all the time and he's really > > > > > craving the > > > > > > quality that he's seeing from guys on his > > > Canon > > > > > > forums. I've subscribed myself to one and have > > > > > seen > > > > > > some of this work and it blows me away. Much > > > of it > > > > > > looks like MF to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then you've seen prints. Because on the web MF > > > work > > > > > looks exactly > > > > > like APS-C sensor work. They're all just itty > > > bitty > > > > > images. > > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > All I can say is what I've seen on the web. To my > > > eye > > > > it appears vastly improved over what I see with > > > the > > > > smaller sensor cameras. It has a pop that just > > > isn't > > > > there with my stuff (inviting all now to simply > > > say > > > > it's my lousy photo skills vs. gear...<groan>). > > > > > > > > It's been enough to prompt me to see about renting > > > one > > > > to check it out for myself. > > > > > > > > -Brendan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > > > > Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. > > > > Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. > > > > > > > > > http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html > > > > > > > > -- > > > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > > PDML@pdml.net > > > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ > > > > > > -- > > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > PDML@pdml.net > > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > > TV dinner still cooling? > > Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. > > http://tv.yahoo.com/ > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > -- > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
