Is a 1/1.8" (7.18 x 5.32 mm) sensor sufficient for 10mp and 12mp?

In article , John
McWilliams writes
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , John
McWilliams writes


In the part you clipped, I referred to Scotch-Irish, Scots, and
Irish. The Queen of England herself referred to the first one
herself, over 200 years ago.
You'll note the irrelevance of Queen of *England*'s description
natives of the other country under discussion.

It was a reference to those Scots who had gone to live and work in
Ireland, usually on a plantation, and ended up in England.

Like so many in your country, you clearly know little about the history
of the Scots in Ireland.

Perhaps if more Yanks had ever bothered to learn that history, instead
of myths about leprechauns and the blarney stone, then it wouldn't have
taken a bunch of arabs turning airliners into guided missiles to have
ended your decades of funding Irish terrorism.

It's a well known genealogical term, at least stateside,
Well known, but incorrect.

and it's incorrect to use "Scottish" or "Scots" in its place.

On the contrary, "Scots" *is* the correct usage in the specific
example you cited.

It isn't. So:

Who are you and what are your credentials in this matter? Are you a
rabid Scot? An erudite American? A turncoat?

Your preconceptions about your particular credentials, whilst obviously
misplaced, are quite clear in the above statement. As it happens, my
credentials are precisely those of the topic under discussion, unlike
you.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:23:16 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

In article , John
McWilliams writes
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , John
McWilliams writes


In the part you clipped, I referred to Scotch-Irish, Scots, and
Irish. The Queen of England herself referred to the first one
herself, over 200 years ago.
You'll note the irrelevance of Queen of *England*'s description
natives of the other country under discussion.

It was a reference to those Scots who had gone to live and work in
Ireland, usually on a plantation, and ended up in England.

Like so many in your country, you clearly know little about the history
of the Scots in Ireland.

Perhaps if more Yanks had ever bothered to learn that history, instead
of myths about leprechauns and the blarney stone, then it wouldn't have
taken a bunch of arabs turning airliners into guided missiles to have
ended your decades of funding Irish terrorism.

It's a well known genealogical term, at least stateside,
Well known, but incorrect.

and it's incorrect to use "Scottish" or "Scots" in its place.

On the contrary, "Scots" *is* the correct usage in the specific
example you cited.

It isn't. So:

Who are you and what are your credentials in this matter? Are you a
rabid Scot? An erudite American? A turncoat?

Your preconceptions about your particular credentials, whilst obviously
misplaced, are quite clear in the above statement. As it happens, my
credentials are precisely those of the topic under discussion,

So you're a 1/1.8" sensor?

Kennedy McEwen wrote:

Who are you and what are your credentials in this matter? Are you a
rabid Scot? An erudite American? A turncoat?

Your preconceptions about your particular credentials, whilst obviously
misplaced, are quite clear in the above statement. As it happens, my
credentials are precisely those of the topic under discussion, unlike you.

Could you be more obtuse?

C'mon, I dare you.

--
lsmft

On Feb 11, 5:01 am, "Paul D. Sullivan" wrote:
I keep hearing from students and folks with laptops that since
they only have 800 vertical pixels, they get annoyed scrolling
down. Hard to please everyone, it seems.

It's simple, really:

A: Because it interrupts the logical flow of the message.

Q: Why is top-posting frowned upon?

-Gniewko

In article , John
McWilliams writes
Kennedy McEwen wrote:

Who are you and what are your credentials in this matter? Are you a
rabid Scot? An erudite American? A turncoat?

Your preconceptions about your particular credentials, whilst
obviously misplaced, are quite clear in the above statement. As it
happens, my credentials are precisely those of the topic under
discussion, unlike you.

Could you be more obtuse?

C'mon, I dare you.

Could you be more stupid. It's quite simple really.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)