Six out of Ten Nikon Shooters Wants 36MP or More

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 25 May 2017 15:36:33 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 10:04:21 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 25 May 2017 11:40:22 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 5:33:49 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:


You asked a question,

No the qustion was (to nikon users) how many MP they need and I
questioned
why people wouldn't want the highest possible/availible.

From a consumer standpoint, we've been conditioned to aways want
"more",

That's something to do with being sencint and wanting more
from life in general.

Yes, and that's going to create a bias in a poorly designed survey.

So I donlt think it was much of a useful question to ask probbaly just
linkbate.


even when we don't really need it. For example, look at
the 0-60mph specifications of automobiles sold today versus
one sold in 1985 ... Grannie's modern but mundane four door
sedan is as quick as those past generation Ford Mustangs.

and most likely cheaper too, would granny have brought a mustang
unlikely.

Cost isn't really my point. My point is that a 1985 era 4-door
typically had a 0-60mph of 13-14 seconds ... and these don't
even exist anymore in today's marketplace.

Why would they in the general market place.


Case in point:
2016 Chevrolet Malibu LT 1.5T ... 7.8 sec
1980 Ford Mustang Cobra ... 10.8 sec
1983 Chevrolet Camaro ... 9.4 sec

You can still buy them if you want them, and I donlt see how this makes your
point.



All of which despite today's fuel cost spikes, etc.

Fuel costs are pretty low and it also depends where you buy your fuel.


And where surveys like this fall short is informing
the survey recipient on what the trade-offs are. For
example, product cost, or Signal/Noise ratio.

yep I agree, which is why I was questioning the "NEED" criteria.
Some will buy what they need but most go for products that
exceed their present need.

Sure, but behaviorally, buying excess capacity vs current needs
tends to increase as the good becomes more durable (longer useful
lifespan): its an estimation factor for future capability needs.

Not really as the useful life span reduces as you go higher end.


The option may be of use to some people for reasons which might
include the limits imposed by ISPs (and others) on the size of
image
files.

Well I don't really see this link, I doubt anyone chooses a camera
based
on their ISP, so I would reject that as a possibility.

Every time that any of us downsample an image for it to be emailed, or
used
on a webpage ... we are doing so because of the knowledge that
bandwidth
is limited and it will take forever to transmit a large data file.

Few will buy a camera just for that purpose and I've not seen
one avaiibile for that purpose.

Most digital cameras already have the feature as standard: its
where there's options to shoot with reduced pixel counts.

Yes that's what I've said and used but its neither a need or a want for my
next camera purchase.


And some professions use this extensively, such as news photo
journalists who are under tighter deadlines ... their workflow
becomes fastest when they don't have to post-process just to
reduce file size for transmission to the newsroom.

Yes I totally agree and that was my point why ask me how many I NEED as that
varies with what I'm doing or rathe rinted to do in the future and for
practical purposes I'm limit by what's availble or possible.



Would it suprise me if you chose a camera based on
your ISP, I would find it rather strange but then
again you do use a PC ;-)

And I use a Mac ... and regularly downsample my images
when they're going to be used on a webpage or emailed /
texted / etc. Its a waste of resources and manifests
itself primarily as time, but may also be a higher
service cost too.

I've done that in the past and if I know they are only
for web I don't need to set my camera to RAW 6000 x 4000,
I set it to 2560 x 1920 or less that way I save on card
& disc space and post processing.

See, you *are* aware of a feature used/desired by others.

But is that something you NEED. If I didn;t have that function I'd use
post-processing to achieve it.


The buffer is finite in storage capacity and because it is high speed,

That is why it fills up.
I'm not sure what sort of memeory chips it uses but would think
it is simialr to that used in graphics cards.

Its "faster" (higher bandwidth) which makes it more expensive,
which is why its part of the engineering trades that the
manufacturer will go through during product design.

Yes I know.


Typically, today's cameras are configured at a fixed FPS and what
will vary depending on RAW vs JPEG is how many shots you get
before the buffer is full...eg, six versus sixteen, etc.

So a good reason to set lower pixel count for images then where you
don't needed for high quality printing or projection.

And/or skip RAW and use JPEG only.

In which case you'd state you needed a low number of mehapixels, I doubt
that's the first think Nikon Shooters would say they NEED.



That's why asking peole what they need isn't a good idea ask them what
they want.

Only if you're bad at developing survey questions.

Which they obviously are.

For example, a
much better question to have asked would have been "How Much ($$)
would you be willing to spend to have XYZ?".

They can already tell that by the ratio of sales of cameras.
This is also very similar to cars.


So is there any reason to want to limit image size you can
capture on a camera. ?

Because memory cards cost money too, even if that isn't
immediately evident as part of the trade-offs that this
survey neglected to mention when they very simplistically
asked people, "do you want more?".

They didn't even ask that and that IS MY POINT. askign peole what they
need.
Another poll: how many megapixels do you need from your next Nikon camera
Open this up to anyone not just nikon.

Those would still be poorly designed survey questions.

That's what I said.


So tell, me what you NEED from yuor next camera megapixel wise ?

I have No particualr need, I want more than I have but I don't
think having any more will help me get my parrakeets in flight
any better.
Unless of course it can beat slo-mo on the iphone.

Personally, I haven't really thought about it much, as I just
bought another new body last year (Canon 7Dmk2) for a relatively
short term need (another African Safari trip).

Interesting as the Canon 7Dmk2 was the camera at the top of my list when I
was considering a new camera.


In general though, I'm finding ~20MP to be adequate most of
my time,

Me too, and I remmebr reading photography mags back in the days before
on-line and they said that to replace a top range SLR 35mm camera you'd
need a pixel count of 20MP to get the same 'quality image'

so I'm more interested in "better" pixels (signal-noise),
better (cleaner signal) performance at higher ISO's, and of course,
faster bursts for action shots. I'm also tempted to move up
from 1080p video to 4K, although I know that this is just a
"future-proofing" and that doing so will mean an additional
expense of probably $6K for a new desktop capable of doing a
good job on editing that video format.

Sounds a lot of $ , I haven't tried 4K yet, even though I can get it on my
iphone.


Probably next up for me will be to replace my current UW system,
as it dates from 2010 and back then, the capabilities I needed
were only able to be satisfied with a full blown housed dSLR.
The modern 4/3rds and Mirrorless stuff seems to have licked
the problem of super-wide angle, so a new setup would probably
be half the size/weight of my current, which would make taking
it on dive trips (airline carry-on constraints) much easier.
But considering that this setup cost $8K, I'd like to continue
to amortize it down for few more years...which helps pay for
the other toys, such as last year's 400mm f/4 DO IS purchase.

-hh

SO do you thunk the nikon rumour sites Q regardign how many MP yuo need for
your next camera very useful to Nikon or anyone else or like me do you just
think the Q might have another aim.
How many people top you think opted for the I NEED less than 20MP from my
next Nokon ?

The standings as I type!

"How many megapixels do you need from your next Nikon camera?
Less than 20MP 4.52% (783 votes)


20MP 7.27% (1,259 votes)


24MP 29.12% (5,039 votes)


36MP 21.26% (3,679 votes)


46MP 16.03% (2,775 votes)


More than 46MP 20.14% (3,485 votes)


Other: 1.65% (286 votes)



Total Votes: 17,306"

https://nikonrumors.com/2017/05/22/a...egapixels-do-y
ou-need-from-your-next-nikon-camera.aspx/

For Erich:

http://tinyurl.com/mafaf7g
--
teleportation kills

On 26/05/2017 11:23, Whisky-dave mentioned ...

I get them everyday vai my APOD app.
http://apodapp.com/


Thanks for that, Dave - I've now got the APOD APP on MY iPhone! :-)

--
"Do something wonderful, people may imitate it." (Albert Schweitzer)

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 26 May 2017 11:37:37 UTC+1, android wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 25 May 2017 15:36:33 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 10:04:21 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 25 May 2017 11:40:22 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 5:33:49 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:


You asked a question,

No the qustion was (to nikon users) how many MP they need and I
questioned
why people wouldn't want the highest possible/availible.

From a consumer standpoint, we've been conditioned to aways want
"more",

That's something to do with being sencint and wanting more
from life in general.

Yes, and that's going to create a bias in a poorly designed survey.

So I donlt think it was much of a useful question to ask probbaly just
linkbate.


even when we don't really need it. For example, look at
the 0-60mph specifications of automobiles sold today versus
one sold in 1985 ... Grannie's modern but mundane four door
sedan is as quick as those past generation Ford Mustangs.

and most likely cheaper too, would granny have brought a mustang
unlikely.

Cost isn't really my point. My point is that a 1985 era 4-door
typically had a 0-60mph of 13-14 seconds ... and these don't
even exist anymore in today's marketplace.

Why would they in the general market place.


Case in point:
2016 Chevrolet Malibu LT 1.5T ... 7.8 sec
1980 Ford Mustang Cobra ... 10.8 sec
1983 Chevrolet Camaro ... 9.4 sec

You can still buy them if you want them, and I donlt see how this makes
your
point.



All of which despite today's fuel cost spikes, etc.

Fuel costs are pretty low and it also depends where you buy your fuel.


And where surveys like this fall short is informing
the survey recipient on what the trade-offs are. For
example, product cost, or Signal/Noise ratio.

yep I agree, which is why I was questioning the "NEED" criteria.
Some will buy what they need but most go for products that
exceed their present need.

Sure, but behaviorally, buying excess capacity vs current needs
tends to increase as the good becomes more durable (longer useful
lifespan): its an estimation factor for future capability needs.

Not really as the useful life span reduces as you go higher end.


The option may be of use to some people for reasons which might
include the limits imposed by ISPs (and others) on the size of
image
files.

Well I don't really see this link, I doubt anyone chooses a
camera
based
on their ISP, so I would reject that as a possibility.

Every time that any of us downsample an image for it to be emailed,
or
used
on a webpage ... we are doing so because of the knowledge that
bandwidth
is limited and it will take forever to transmit a large data file.

Few will buy a camera just for that purpose and I've not seen
one avaiibile for that purpose.

Most digital cameras already have the feature as standard: its
where there's options to shoot with reduced pixel counts.

Yes that's what I've said and used but its neither a need or a want for
my
next camera purchase.


And some professions use this extensively, such as news photo
journalists who are under tighter deadlines ... their workflow
becomes fastest when they don't have to post-process just to
reduce file size for transmission to the newsroom.

Yes I totally agree and that was my point why ask me how many I NEED as
that
varies with what I'm doing or rathe rinted to do in the future and for
practical purposes I'm limit by what's availble or possible.



Would it suprise me if you chose a camera based on
your ISP, I would find it rather strange but then
again you do use a PC ;-)

And I use a Mac ... and regularly downsample my images
when they're going to be used on a webpage or emailed /
texted / etc. Its a waste of resources and manifests
itself primarily as time, but may also be a higher
service cost too.

I've done that in the past and if I know they are only
for web I don't need to set my camera to RAW 6000 x 4000,
I set it to 2560 x 1920 or less that way I save on card
& disc space and post processing.

See, you *are* aware of a feature used/desired by others.

But is that something you NEED. If I didn;t have that function I'd use
post-processing to achieve it.


The buffer is finite in storage capacity and because it is high
speed,

That is why it fills up.
I'm not sure what sort of memeory chips it uses but would think
it is simialr to that used in graphics cards.

Its "faster" (higher bandwidth) which makes it more expensive,
which is why its part of the engineering trades that the
manufacturer will go through during product design.

Yes I know.


Typically, today's cameras are configured at a fixed FPS and what
will vary depending on RAW vs JPEG is how many shots you get
before the buffer is full...eg, six versus sixteen, etc.

So a good reason to set lower pixel count for images then where you
don't needed for high quality printing or projection.

And/or skip RAW and use JPEG only.

In which case you'd state you needed a low number of mehapixels, I doubt
that's the first think Nikon Shooters would say they NEED.



That's why asking peole what they need isn't a good idea ask them
what
they want.

Only if you're bad at developing survey questions.

Which they obviously are.

For example, a
much better question to have asked would have been "How Much ($$)
would you be willing to spend to have XYZ?".

They can already tell that by the ratio of sales of cameras.
This is also very similar to cars.


So is there any reason to want to limit image size you can
capture on a camera. ?

Because memory cards cost money too, even if that isn't
immediately evident as part of the trade-offs that this
survey neglected to mention when they very simplistically
asked people, "do you want more?".

They didn't even ask that and that IS MY POINT. askign peole what
they
need.
Another poll: how many megapixels do you need from your next Nikon
camera
Open this up to anyone not just nikon.

Those would still be poorly designed survey questions.

That's what I said.


So tell, me what you NEED from yuor next camera megapixel wise ?

I have No particualr need, I want more than I have but I don't
think having any more will help me get my parrakeets in flight
any better.
Unless of course it can beat slo-mo on the iphone.

Personally, I haven't really thought about it much, as I just
bought another new body last year (Canon 7Dmk2) for a relatively
short term need (another African Safari trip).

Interesting as the Canon 7Dmk2 was the camera at the top of my list when
I
was considering a new camera.


In general though, I'm finding ~20MP to be adequate most of
my time,

Me too, and I remmebr reading photography mags back in the days before
on-line and they said that to replace a top range SLR 35mm camera you'd
need a pixel count of 20MP to get the same 'quality image'

so I'm more interested in "better" pixels (signal-noise),
better (cleaner signal) performance at higher ISO's, and of course,
faster bursts for action shots. I'm also tempted to move up
from 1080p video to 4K, although I know that this is just a
"future-proofing" and that doing so will mean an additional
expense of probably $6K for a new desktop capable of doing a
good job on editing that video format.

Sounds a lot of $ , I haven't tried 4K yet, even though I can get it on
my
iphone.


Probably next up for me will be to replace my current UW system,
as it dates from 2010 and back then, the capabilities I needed
were only able to be satisfied with a full blown housed dSLR.
The modern 4/3rds and Mirrorless stuff seems to have licked
the problem of super-wide angle, so a new setup would probably
be half the size/weight of my current, which would make taking
it on dive trips (airline carry-on constraints) much easier.
But considering that this setup cost $8K, I'd like to continue
to amortize it down for few more years...which helps pay for
the other toys, such as last year's 400mm f/4 DO IS purchase.

-hh

SO do you thunk the nikon rumour sites Q regardign how many MP yuo need
for
your next camera very useful to Nikon or anyone else or like me do you
just
think the Q might have another aim.
How many people top you think opted for the I NEED less than 20MP from my
next Nokon ?

The standings as I type!

"How many megapixels do you need from your next Nikon camera?
Less than 20MP 4.52% (783 votes)


20MP 7.27% (1,259 votes)


24MP 29.12% (5,039 votes)


36MP 21.26% (3,679 votes)


46MP 16.03% (2,775 votes)


More than 46MP 20.14% (3,485 votes)


Other: 1.65% (286 votes)



Total Votes: 17,306"

https://nikonrumors.com/2017/05/22/a...egapixels-do-y
ou-need-from-your-next-nikon-camera.aspx/

Can I asked yuo what you voted for an why, just curious as every, unless it's
one of those secret ballots.

The prerequisite was the "your next Nikon camera". I don't have a such!

What sort of camera to you think those that voted for less than 20MP.

Surely if they want less than 20MP they can buy a nikon that has less than
20MP rather than expect canon to make a new sub 20MP camera .

I was merely trying to do you a favor giving you an answer to your
query! Shshh... :-ppp
--
teleportation kills

On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 5:50:42 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 25 May 2017 15:36:33 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 10:04:21 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 25 May 2017 11:40:22 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 5:33:49 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:


You asked a question,

No the qustion was (to nikon users) how many MP they need and I questioned
why people wouldn't want the highest possible/availible.

From a consumer standpoint, we've been conditioned to aways want "more",

That's something to do with being sencint and wanting more
from life in general.

Yes, and that's going to create a bias in a poorly designed survey.

So I donlt think it was much of a useful question to ask
probbaly just linkbate.

Philosophically, we can suggest that no data is ever *totally*
useless, but some often comes quite close. This doesn't really
do much more than test the waters for what percentage of the
self-selected group might be open to being marketed a new body.


even when we don't really need it. For example, look at
the 0-60mph specifications of automobiles sold today versus
one sold in 1985 ... Grannie's modern but mundane four door
sedan is as quick as those past generation Ford Mustangs.

and most likely cheaper too, would granny have brought a mustang unlikely.

Cost isn't really my point. My point is that a 1985 era 4-door
typically had a 0-60mph of 13-14 seconds ... and these don't
even exist anymore in today's marketplace.

Why would they in the general market place.

Its a trade-off for manufacturing - just like there's not an
adequate market for a 1 FPS camera, a slow car sell unless it
has some other market-redeeming factor, such as great MPG.



Case in point:
2016 Chevrolet Malibu LT 1.5T ... 7.8 sec
1980 Ford Mustang Cobra ... 10.8 sec
1983 Chevrolet Camaro ... 9.4 sec

You can still buy them if you want them, and I donlt see
how this makes your point.

Wait until gas hits $5/gallon again, and consumers look to
reprioritizing their feature sets.




And where surveys like this fall short is informing
the survey recipient on what the trade-offs are. For
example, product cost, or Signal/Noise ratio.

yep I agree, which is why I was questioning the "NEED" criteria.
Some will buy what they need but most go for products that
exceed their present need.

Sure, but behaviorally, buying excess capacity vs current needs
tends to increase as the good becomes more durable (longer useful
lifespan): its an estimation factor for future capability needs.

Not really as the useful life span reduces as you go higher end.

But does apply to the more consumer/prosumer ... and just what's
the readership of where that 'survey' was targeted?



The option may be of use to some people for reasons which might
include the limits imposed by ISPs (and others) on the size of image
files.

Well I don't really see this link, I doubt anyone chooses a camera based
on their ISP, so I would reject that as a possibility.

Every time that any of us downsample an image for it to be emailed, or used
on a webpage ... we are doing so because of the knowledge that bandwidth
is limited and it will take forever to transmit a large data file.

Few will buy a camera just for that purpose and I've not seen
one avaiibile for that purpose.

Most digital cameras already have the feature as standard: its
where there's options to shoot with reduced pixel counts.

Yes that's what I've said and used but its neither a need or a
want for my next camera purchase.

For you personally it isn't, but from the manufacturer's standpoint,
its cheaper for them to make a single product with a nearly free
menu settings option to "de-rez" than it is for them to make two
products at higher NRE.


Typically, today's cameras are configured at a fixed FPS and what
will vary depending on RAW vs JPEG is how many shots you get
before the buffer is full...eg, six versus sixteen, etc.

So a good reason to set lower pixel count for images then where
you don't needed for high quality printing or projection.

And/or skip RAW and use JPEG only.

In which case you'd state you needed a low number of mehapixels,
I doubt that's the first think Nikon Shooters would say they NEED.

From a basic engineering standpoint, one either puts in a bigger
buffer, or you make each shot's dataset smaller. The latter can
be done by having fewer addressed megapixels, and/or by using a
more compressible data format (eg, lossy JPEG)

And of course, one can do any combination, including all three.


That's why asking peole what they need isn't a good idea
ask them what they want.

Only if you're bad at developing survey questions.

Which they obviously are.

Yup.



For example, a
much better question to have asked would have been "How Much ($$)
would you be willing to spend to have XYZ?".

They can already tell that by the ratio of sales of cameras.
This is also very similar to cars.

Hence, even bad survey data isn't *totally* useless.



So tell, me what you NEED from yuor next camera [...]?

Personally, I haven't really thought about it much, as I just
bought another new body last year (Canon 7Dmk2) for a relatively
short term need (another African Safari trip).

Interesting as the Canon 7Dmk2 was the camera at the top
of my list when I was considering a new camera.

And?


In general though, I'm finding ~20MP to be adequate most of
my time,

Me too, and I remmebr reading photography mags back in the
days before on-line and they said that to replace a top
range SLR 35mm camera you'd need a pixel count of 20MP to
get the same 'quality image'

My recollection was ~25MP to be equivalent to ISO ~50 Velvia.

In reality, the factor of pixel quality wasn't as well understood
back then, and this factor shifted those early estimates such
that digital "caught up" with film earlier than 20MP.


so I'm more interested in "better" pixels (signal-noise),
better (cleaner signal) performance at higher ISO's, and of course,
faster bursts for action shots. I'm also tempted to move up
from 1080p video to 4K, although I know that this is just a
"future-proofing" and that doing so will mean an additional
expense of probably $6K for a new desktop capable of doing a
good job on editing that video format.

Sounds a lot of $ , I haven't tried 4K yet, even though I can
get it on my iphone.

Having nice stuff gets expensive. For example, when I wrapped
an UW housing system around my 7D body back in 2010, including
the cost of the body, two lenses, UW strobes and all of the rest
of the system pieces, the final total cost out the door was ~$8K.

At the point, the PC becomes more of a "camera peripheral" expense,
even though one will use it for non-photographic stuff.


Probably next up for me will be to replace my current UW system,
as it dates from 2010 and back then, the capabilities I needed
were only able to be satisfied with a full blown housed dSLR.
The modern 4/3rds and Mirrorless stuff seems to have licked
the problem of super-wide angle, so a new setup would probably
be half the size/weight of my current, which would make taking
it on dive trips (airline carry-on constraints) much easier.
But considering that this setup cost $8K, I'd like to continue
to amortize it down for few more years...which helps pay for
the other toys, such as last year's 400mm f/4 DO IS purchase.

SO do you thunk the nikon rumour sites Q regardign how many MP
yuo need for your next camera very useful to Nikon or anyone
else or like me do you just think the Q might have another aim.

Its probably more to generate interest in an upcoming product
than to decide what product to develop. The survey may give
them some insight on what mix of (already developed) products
to offer, in what quantities (at least relative to each other)
and possibly a little insight on potential price points.

How many people top you think opted for the I NEED less than
20MP from my next Nokon ?

Well, the survey results do have a number ... I think that
android may have posted them? ... but in any case, there's
still many more product design factors other than merely
pixels. For example, if Nikon were to release a camera
with crazy-fast & deep burst rates ...

{{for sake of illustration, let's say 240 FPS for 10 sec}}

.... don't you think that this notional feature set would cause
some interest, even if it pedantically had a 20MP sensor?


-hh

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:
[---]
How many people top you think opted for the I NEED less than 20MP
from my
next Nokon ?

The standings as I type!

"How many megapixels do you need from your next Nikon camera?
Less than 20MP 4.52% (783 votes)


20MP 7.27% (1,259 votes)


24MP 29.12% (5,039 votes)


36MP 21.26% (3,679 votes)


46MP 16.03% (2,775 votes)


More than 46MP 20.14% (3,485 votes)


Other: 1.65% (286 votes)



Total Votes: 17,306"

https://nikonrumors.com/2017/05/22/a...megapixels-do-
y
ou-need-from-your-next-nikon-camera.aspx/

Can I asked yuo what you voted for an why, just curious as every, unless
it's
one of those secret ballots.

The prerequisite was the "your next Nikon camera". I don't have a such!

Niether do I which is one reason I didnlt vote.

Did you know I was considering entering celebrity master chef.

Everyone think that they are good at something and that's good since it
keeps the suicide rate down... Celebrity. Arn't you the one that
professed that you change batteries in wireless mice for a living? Not
that that ain't an honorable way to make one but...

BTW, should I use an an or an a before a h if the it's silent? Can't be
bowered with that internet thingy right now!


What sort of camera to you think those that voted for less than 20MP.

Surely if they want less than 20MP they can buy a nikon that has less
than
20MP rather than expect canon to make a new sub 20MP camera .

I was merely trying to do you a favor giving you an answer to your
query! Shshh... :-ppp

AH but it wasn't a corect answer.

I think that the question would be at fault then!
--
teleportation kills

On Fri, 26 May 2017 03:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 25 May 2017 23:20:24 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 25 May 2017 02:33:45 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:


Well I don't really see this link, I doubt anyone chooses a camera based on their ISP, so I would reject that as a possibility.

Would it suprise me if you chose a camera based on your ISP, I would find it rather strange but then again you do use a PC ;-)

Is your circle of friends so small that only one ISP is involved?

Well I assume that IPS is internet service provider and I donlt think any of my circle of friends have ever based theoir camera decision on such a think, they might base their smartphone on such a thing due to special offeres or deal but not their camera, washing machine, fridge or freezer or choice of contraceptive.

I am now retired but at least twenty five years ago I was exchanging
photographs with others as part of my work. Initially they were
scanned from ordinary prints but I went digital in 2001. I was very
concious of maximum file size as virtually all ISPs imposed quite
tight limits on mailbox size. 5MB was considered generous. Restrictive
limits now seem to have gone away but it wasn't that long ago.

So is there any reason to want to limit image size you can capture on a camera. ?

Yes. File size.

why, what does file size have to do with it ?

It depends on how many photographs you want to store.


And it seems ridiculous to use a 100mP camerea to produce 5mB JPGs.

Doesn't to me NASA do it all the time they take Giga pixel images and then just show you the relivant star or cluster on the web at less than 5MB.

But the production of 5MB JPGs is not the primary purpose of NASA's
Giga pixel images.

I get them everyday vai my APOD app.
http://apodapp.com/



--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Whisky-dave Wrote in message:
On Saturday, 27 May 2017 00:27:45 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2017 03:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 25 May 2017 23:20:24 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 25 May 2017 02:33:45 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:


Well I don't really see this link, I doubt anyone chooses a camera based on their ISP, so I would reject that as a possibility.

Would it suprise me if you chose a camera based on your ISP, I would find it rather strange but then again you do use a PC ;-)

Is your circle of friends so small that only one ISP is involved?

Well I assume that IPS is internet service provider and I donlt think any of my circle of friends have ever based theoir camera decision on such a think, they might base their smartphone on such a thing due to special offeres or deal but not their camera, washing machine, fridge or freezer or choice of contraceptive.

I am now retired but at least twenty five years ago I was exchanging
photographs with others as part of my work.

As you say 25 years ago ....


Initially they were
scanned from ordinary prints but I went digital in 2001. I was very
concious of maximum file size as virtually all ISPs imposed quite
tight limits on mailbox size.

Even then there were other ways of sending file seven today I don't use mail as a way to send people pictures.

5MB was considered generous. Restrictive
limits now seem to have gone away but it wasn't that long ago.

I still donlt believe anyone chose a camera based on their ISP.



So is there any reason to want to limit image size you can capture on a camera. ?

Yes. File size.

why, what does file size have to do with it ?

It depends on how many photographs you want to store.

I doubt that is used in the calculatin of which tyoe of camera or sensor size you choose.


And it seems ridiculous to use a 100mP camerea to produce 5mB JPGs.

Doesn't to me NASA do it all the time they take Giga pixel images and then just show you the relivant star or cluster on the web at less than 5MB.

But the production of 5MB JPGs is not the primary purpose of NASA's
Giga pixel images.

Correct few buy a camera based on a minium requirement, hence the original question of how many MP do you NEED rahter than WANT.

Few people need more than 4MP but this group is recreation
oriented. Hence rec.photo.digital... :-ppp
--
360 ain't enough


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 10:51:00 UTC+1, android wrote:
Whisky-dave Wrote in message:
On Saturday, 27 May 2017 00:27:45 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2017 03:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 25 May 2017 23:20:24 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 25 May 2017 02:33:45 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:


Well I don't really see this link, I doubt anyone chooses a camera
based on their ISP, so I would reject that as a possibility.

Would it suprise me if you chose a camera based on your ISP, I would
find it rather strange but then again you do use a PC ;-)

Is your circle of friends so small that only one ISP is involved?

Well I assume that IPS is internet service provider and I donlt think
any of my circle of friends have ever based theoir camera decision on
such a think, they might base their smartphone on such a thing due to
special offeres or deal but not their camera, washing machine, fridge
or freezer or choice of contraceptive.

I am now retired but at least twenty five years ago I was exchanging
photographs with others as part of my work.

As you say 25 years ago ....


Initially they were
scanned from ordinary prints but I went digital in 2001. I was very
concious of maximum file size as virtually all ISPs imposed quite
tight limits on mailbox size.

Even then there were other ways of sending file seven today I don't use
mail as a way to send people pictures.

5MB was considered generous. Restrictive
limits now seem to have gone away but it wasn't that long ago.

I still donlt believe anyone chose a camera based on their ISP.



So is there any reason to want to limit image size you can capture
on a camera. ?

Yes. File size.

why, what does file size have to do with it ?

It depends on how many photographs you want to store.

I doubt that is used in the calculatin of which tyoe of camera or sensor
size you choose.


And it seems ridiculous to use a 100mP camerea to produce 5mB JPGs.

Doesn't to me NASA do it all the time they take Giga pixel images and
then just show you the relivant star or cluster on the web at less than
5MB.

But the production of 5MB JPGs is not the primary purpose of NASA's
Giga pixel images.

Correct few buy a camera based on a minium requirement, hence the
original question of how many MP do you NEED rahter than WANT.

Few people need more than 4MP but this group is recreation
oriented. Hence rec.photo.digital... :-ppp

There was no filter for recreational photogrphy when deciding how many MP you
want or need the only critreia was that you were a nikon shooter.

This usenet group is recreational oriented. That's why it's in the rec.*
hierarchy. Pros are indeed welcome!

So I';m not siure if recreational can be appied to nikon shooters as easily
it can be applied to casio or kodak shooters.

Just click it:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PKNA02/1032827331.html
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 26 May 2017 16:57:48 UTC+1, android wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:
[---]
How many people top you think opted for the I NEED less than 20MP
from my
next Nokon ?

The standings as I type!

"How many megapixels do you need from your next Nikon camera?
Less than 20MP 4.52% (783 votes)


20MP 7.27% (1,259 votes)


24MP 29.12% (5,039 votes)


36MP 21.26% (3,679 votes)


46MP 16.03% (2,775 votes)


More than 46MP 20.14% (3,485 votes)


Other: 1.65% (286 votes)



Total Votes: 17,306"

https://nikonrumors.com/2017/05/22/a...any-megapixels
-do-
y
ou-need-from-your-next-nikon-camera.aspx/

Can I asked yuo what you voted for an why, just curious as every,
unless
it's
one of those secret ballots.

The prerequisite was the "your next Nikon camera". I don't have a such!

Niether do I which is one reason I didnlt vote.

Did you know I was considering entering celebrity master chef.

Everyone think that they are good at something and that's good since it
keeps the suicide rate down... Celebrity. Arn't you the one that
professed that you change batteries in wireless mice for a living? Not
that that ain't an honorable way to make one but...

No you must be thinking of someone else.

Nope!


BTW, should I use an an or an a before a h if the it's silent? Can't be
bowered with that internet thingy right now!

Dunno I was always told you use 'an' if he first letter of the next word is a
vowel but it's never made much sense to me.

That was that that I was taught too but i forgot to ask about what if
there's a silent consonant before the first vowel. I have not always
been able to foresee the needs that the future might bring me! ;-ppp


What sort of camera to you think those that voted for less than 20MP.

Surely if they want less than 20MP they can buy a nikon that has less
than
20MP rather than expect canon to make a new sub 20MP camera .

I was merely trying to do you a favor giving you an answer to your
query! Shshh... :-ppp

AH but it wasn't a corect answer.

I think that the question would be at fault then!

That's what I said originally, and why I didn't see this 'survey' as very
meaningful.

Sure it is for those that are interested in what Nikon shooters want.
--
teleportation kills

On Tue, 30 May 2017 02:08:38 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Saturday, 27 May 2017 00:27:45 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2017 03:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 25 May 2017 23:20:24 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 25 May 2017 02:33:45 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:


Well I don't really see this link, I doubt anyone chooses a camera based on their ISP, so I would reject that as a possibility.

Would it suprise me if you chose a camera based on your ISP, I would find it rather strange but then again you do use a PC ;-)

Is your circle of friends so small that only one ISP is involved?

Well I assume that IPS is internet service provider and I donlt think any of my circle of friends have ever based theoir camera decision on such a think, they might base their smartphone on such a thing due to special offeres or deal but not their camera, washing machine, fridge or freezer or choice of contraceptive.

I am now retired but at least twenty five years ago I was exchanging
photographs with others as part of my work.

As you say 25 years ago ....


Initially they were
scanned from ordinary prints but I went digital in 2001. I was very
concious of maximum file size as virtually all ISPs imposed quite
tight limits on mailbox size.

Even then there were other ways of sending file seven today I don't use mail as a way to send people pictures.

5MB was considered generous. Restrictive
limits now seem to have gone away but it wasn't that long ago.

I still donlt believe anyone chose a camera based on their ISP.

Nor has it been suggested in this thread that that is what people have
done.

Way back in Message-ID:
you asked "So
why do camera makers have this option ... ?" and I later replied "The
option may be of use to some people for reasons which might include
the limits imposed by ISPs (and others) on the size of image files."

Until you raised the idea, nobody had suggested that someone might
choose a camera based on their ISP.




So is there any reason to want to limit image size you can capture on a camera. ?

Yes. File size.

why, what does file size have to do with it ?

It depends on how many photographs you want to store.

I doubt that is used in the calculatin of which tyoe of camera or sensor size you choose.


And it seems ridiculous to use a 100mP camerea to produce 5mB JPGs.

Doesn't to me NASA do it all the time they take Giga pixel images and then just show you the relivant star or cluster on the web at less than 5MB.

But the production of 5MB JPGs is not the primary purpose of NASA's
Giga pixel images.

Correct few buy a camera based on a minium requirement, hence the original question of how many MP do you NEED rahter than WANT.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens