There could still be hope! 4 a D7200!!!

On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 20:09:38 -0800, RichA wrote in
message :

On Wednesday, 25 February 2015 15:59:19 UTC-5, android wrote:
David Taylor Wrote in message:
On 25/02/2015 18:29, android wrote:
Bowser Wrote in message:
[]
Well, I'm keeping the GH3 and my m4/3 kit. Still does a great job
and can't be beat as a travel cam. Love those light 2.8 zooms.

But I have a few things coming up over the next two years that
really call for higher IQ.

The sensor in mft is really tiny. Quarterframe...

So what, /if/ that sensor can deliver the desired image quality? As
Bowser suggests, if you need more get a bigger sensor. For all my
needs, today's micro-four-thirds sensors and lenses are quite
adequate,
and remarkable considering the size and weight benefits.

Example: I just bought the Olympus fish-eye lens - weighs 50g and is
about the size of a lens cap! Less than GBP 100 as well.

A quarterframe sensor can only deliver half of the information of
a half frame one

People who know nothing of the technology and have no experience with
the performance of different formats use terms like "information." This
is the same nonsense FILM droids used to pretend that film had way more
"information" than digital when anyone with a brain knew digital cameras
passed 35mm film at around 8 megapixels

Anyone who tried that in practice nows that that's not the case. You've
exposed and proven yourself to be an idiot. Shushu...

--
The Goog: Do NT. Be EVIL!

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

android:
A quarterframe sensor can only deliver half of the
information of a half frame one, like in the EOS M or a
quarter of a fullframe one, like in a D810. Any other
statement is pure BS.

nospam:
the only thing that's bs is what you said.

how much information a sensor captures is a function of more
than just its size.

android:
everything else equal and the size matter. as described in the
above.

---Snipped by Sandman: "the physics are the same regardles of the
size of the sensor you know... ---

Sandman:
Well, when it comes to cameras, everything else isn't always equal
:-D

Ah, my bad. Apologies to Android

lowercase a... ;-p
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
Bowser wrote:

On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 21:59:15 +0100 (CET), android
wrote:

David Taylor Wrote in message:
On 25/02/2015 18:29, android wrote:
Bowser Wrote in message:
[]
Well, I'm keeping the GH3 and my m4/3 kit. Still does a great job and
can't be beat as a travel cam. Love those light 2.8 zooms.

But I have a few things coming up over the next two years that really
call for higher IQ.

The sensor in mft is really tiny. Quarterframe...

So what, /if/ that sensor can deliver the desired image quality? As
Bowser suggests, if you need more get a bigger sensor. For all my
needs, today's micro-four-thirds sensors and lenses are quite adequate,
and remarkable considering the size and weight benefits.

Example: I just bought the Olympus fish-eye lens - weighs 50g and is
about the size of a lens cap! Less than GBP 100 as well.

A quarterframe sensor can only deliver half of the information of
a half frame one, like in the EOS M or a quarter of a fullframe
one, like in a D810. Any other statement is pure
BS.

Utter nonsense. All you need to do is look at the results.

Not nonsense. All you need to do is look at the results.
--
teleportation kills