But can most Nikon and Sony lenses do it justice?

On 2011-01-12 21:14:35 -0800, RichA said:

http://www.electronista.com/articles....aps.c.sensor/

I

would still ask, why on Earth would anybody need 25MP on a cropframe sensor?
The largest I am going to print is 13 x 19 and my puny 12MP D300s can
handle that just fine.
If anything my next move would be to FF for better high ISO/Low light
performance. Pushing the D300s over ISO 1600 in low light is OK, but
marginal.
It will be interesting to see if Nikon can control high ISO/Low light
noise for this densly packed sensor.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:29:12 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-01-12 21:14:35 -0800, RichA said:

http://www.electronista.com/articles....aps.c.sensor/

I

would still ask, why on Earth would anybody need 25MP on a cropframe sensor?
The largest I am going to print is 13 x 19 and my puny 12MP D300s can
handle that just fine.

I'm currently printing A3+ (admittedly on matte paper) my ancient 12
MP D300 seems to be doing a magnificent job.

If anything my next move would be to FF for better high ISO/Low light
performance. Pushing the D300s over ISO 1600 in low light is OK, but
marginal.
It will be interesting to see if Nikon can control high ISO/Low light
noise for this densly packed sensor.



Eric Stevens

On 2011-01-12 23:07:55 -0800, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:29:12 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-01-12 21:14:35 -0800, RichA said:

http://www.electronista.com/articles....aps.c.sensor/

I

would

still ask, why on Earth would anybody need 25MP on a cropframe sensor?
The largest I am going to print is 13 x 19 and my puny 12MP D300s can
handle that just fine.

I'm currently printing A3+ (admittedly on matte paper) my ancient 12
MP D300 seems to be doing a magnificent job.

A3+ Yup! That's 13 x 19. Works for me.


If anything my next move would be to FF for better high ISO/Low light
performance. Pushing the D300s over ISO 1600 in low light is OK, but
marginal.
It will be interesting to see if Nikon can control high ISO/Low light
noise for this densly packed sensor.



Eric Stevens


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:35:59 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-01-12 23:07:55 -0800, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:29:12 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-01-12 21:14:35 -0800, RichA said:

http://www.electronista.com/articles....aps.c.sensor/

I

would

still ask, why on Earth would anybody need 25MP on a cropframe sensor?
The largest I am going to print is 13 x 19 and my puny 12MP D300s can
handle that just fine.

I'm currently printing A3+ (admittedly on matte paper) my ancient 12
MP D300 seems to be doing a magnificent job.

A3+ Yup! That's 13 x 19. Works for me.

Damn!

That's metrication for you. I never recognised 13" x 19" as A3+. To me
A3+ is 329 x 483. Somehow, that sounds bigger.


If anything my next move would be to FF for better high ISO/Low light
performance. Pushing the D300s over ISO 1600 in low light is OK, but
marginal.
It will be interesting to see if Nikon can control high ISO/Low light
noise for this densly packed sensor.





Eric Stevens

On 2011.01.13 17:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:
I'm currently printing A3+ (admittedly on matte paper) my ancient 12
MP D300 seems to be doing a magnificent job.

A3+ Yup! That's 13 x 19. Works for me.

Damn!

That's metrication for you. I never recognised 13" x 19" as A3+. To me
A3+ is 329 x 483. Somehow, that sounds bigger.

I didn't even realize there was such a thing as an "A3+" designation.

ISO Heresy. (There is no such thing in the ISO-216 system.)

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:59:40 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2011.01.13 17:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:
I'm currently printing A3+ (admittedly on matte paper) my ancient 12
MP D300 seems to be doing a magnificent job.

A3+ Yup! That's 13 x 19. Works for me.

Damn!

That's metrication for you. I never recognised 13" x 19" as A3+. To me
A3+ is 329 x 483. Somehow, that sounds bigger.

I didn't even realize there was such a thing as an "A3+" designation.

ISO Heresy. (There is no such thing in the ISO-216 system.)

I find that on a per square meter basis it's the cheapest way to buy
paper.

It probably works that way in square inches, also.



Eric Stevens

Alan Browne wrote:
On 2011.01.13 17:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:
I'm currently printing A3+ (admittedly on matte paper) my ancient 12
MP D300 seems to be doing a magnificent job.

A3+ Yup! That's 13 x 19. Works for me.

Damn!

That's metrication for you. I never recognised 13" x 19" as A3+. To me
A3+ is 329 x 483. Somehow, that sounds bigger.

I didn't even realize there was such a thing as an "A3+" designation.

ISO Heresy. (There is no such thing in the ISO-216 system.)

My US Epson printer driver calls it: 'Super B (13 x 19).'

On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 15:19:38 -0800, Paul Furman
wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:
On 2011.01.13 17:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:
I'm currently printing A3+ (admittedly on matte paper) my ancient 12
MP D300 seems to be doing a magnificent job.

A3+ Yup! That's 13 x 19. Works for me.

Damn!

That's metrication for you. I never recognised 13" x 19" as A3+. To me
A3+ is 329 x 483. Somehow, that sounds bigger.

I didn't even realize there was such a thing as an "A3+" designation.

ISO Heresy. (There is no such thing in the ISO-216 system.)

My US Epson printer driver calls it: 'Super B (13 x 19).'

That's interesting. The driver for my Epson Pro 3800 has no Super B
but it does have a Super A 329 x 483.



Eric Stevens

On 2011-01-15 15:19:38 -0800, Paul Furman said:

Alan Browne wrote:
On 2011.01.13 17:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:
I'm currently printing A3+ (admittedly on matte paper) my ancient 12
MP D300 seems to be doing a magnificent job.

A3+ Yup! That's 13 x 19. Works for me.

Damn!

That's metrication for you. I never recognised 13" x 19" as A3+. To me
A3+ is 329 x 483. Somehow, that sounds bigger.

I didn't even realize there was such a thing as an "A3+" designation.

ISO Heresy. (There is no such thing in the ISO-216 system.)

My US Epson printer driver calls it: 'Super B (13 x 19).'

My Epson driver for my US Epson R2880 shows it as Super B (13 x 19) &
A3+ (13 x 19).
My Canon i9900 only shows it as A3+ (13 x19), no Super B with the Canon driver.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2011.01.15 18:19 , Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2011.01.13 17:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:
I'm currently printing A3+ (admittedly on matte paper) my ancient 12
MP D300 seems to be doing a magnificent job.

A3+ Yup! That's 13 x 19. Works for me.

Damn!

That's metrication for you. I never recognised 13" x 19" as A3+. To me
A3+ is 329 x 483. Somehow, that sounds bigger.

I didn't even realize there was such a thing as an "A3+" designation.

ISO Heresy. (There is no such thing in the ISO-216 system.)

My US Epson printer driver calls it: 'Super B (13 x 19).'

Argghhhh!

My 13x19" setting was set up by me on my Epson driver.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.