Why the 800E is more important than ever

Bruce wrote:
"David J Taylor" wrote:

A pity that you have to call a lens "junk" even when is it quite
satisfactory for many purposes, even if not for your needs.

Junk is as good as most people need, related to their ability and
expectations, both being extremely low.

Please show us the photographs where you actually needed more
than junk. Assuming that is possible with your ability.

-Wolfgang

Trevor wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message

Resampling to a monitors native resolution and "comparing" at full screen
size is NO comparison at all.

Of course it is, when that's the output medium.

For a D800E?

The D800E has 10 or 16 MPix?

Might as well compare 6"x4" prints.

Which is a very useful comparison, when the output medium is
6x4 prints.

For a D800E?

The D800E has 10 or 16 MPix?

I'm amazed
at the people who are so stupid as to deride any real comparison as
"pixel
peeping",

"real comparison"? So you habitually print your photos at several
meters high by several meters wide and only view them with the
nose to the print?

Not "habitually"

So that's not a real comparison.

but if I can't at all, then what's the point of buying
expensive camera equipment?

If you think megapixel count is the most important part of a
camera, you have understood nothing.


I'm amazed you can see your subjects at all at that distance and
not just single pixels. But maybe I am stupid for wanting to
see the whole image and trying for mostly normal viewing distances.

Whatever works for you, but why comment on the D800E at all if you don't
need it and are never going to buy one?

This was about RichA detecting differences between 10 and 16
MPix images. Since when was the D800E such a camera?


the same idiots who call checking a camera image or histogram
"chimping" I suppose.

You suppose a lot when the day is long.

Well I see those stupid comments all the time, just like I see people
writing drivel about 6x4" prints etc.

Well, you're surely upset. Mostly because you don't really grasp
what people are really talking about. Happens when you're talking
theory with little if any impact on real life and others talk
about real life, not caring about precious theories.

in a thread about the D800E.

You may need to read more closely.


I guess it makes them feel superior when obviously
they don't have a clue.

How revealing. How very revealing. It's clear you try to
feel superior on a technical basis because you cannot compete
on image content, and as to comparing you really don't have a
clue (obvious to everyone).

Cllear to you perhaps,

It should be clear even to you, if you dare looking into a
mirror.

but fortunately your opinion doesn't count for much!
:-)

Since your opinion doesn't count at all ...

-Wolfgang

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...
Resampling to a monitors native resolution and "comparing" at full
screen
size is NO comparison at all.

Of course it is, when that's the output medium.

For a D800E?

The D800E has 10 or 16 MPix?

More than required for that job at more expense than necessary.


Might as well compare 6"x4" prints.

Which is a very useful comparison, when the output medium is
6x4 prints.

For a D800E?

The D800E has 10 or 16 MPix?

More than required for that job at more expense than necessary.


If you think megapixel count is the most important part of a
camera, you have understood nothing.


If you think you require a $3,000 camera to take decent screen shots or 6x4"
prints YOU understand nothing.


Trevor.

Trevor wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message

Resampling to a monitors native resolution and "comparing" at full
screen
size is NO comparison at all.

Of course it is, when that's the output medium.

For a D800E?

The D800E has 10 or 16 MPix?

More than required for that job at more expense than necessary.

So why are you talking about a D800E, when this subthread is
about detecting differences between 10 and 16 MPix cameras?


Might as well compare 6"x4" prints.

Which is a very useful comparison, when the output medium is
6x4 prints.

For a D800E?

The D800E has 10 or 16 MPix?

More than required for that job at more expense than necessary.

So why are you talking about a D800E, when this subthread is
about detecting differences between 10 and 16 MPix cameras?


If you think megapixel count is the most important part of a
camera, you have understood nothing.

If you think you require a $3,000 camera to take decent screen shots or 6x4"
prints YOU understand nothing.

I think I require a camera with a very sensitive sensor (aka
"high ISO with low noise" if I don't want to use flash in many
settings[1]. Such a camera with the lenses needed can easily
exceed $3,000.

Go ask bird photographers (shooting in the wild), their gear
easily exceeds $3,000 in just the long lenses.

-Wolfgang

[1] If I controlled the settings, there would be ample light.
And a photographer defined distance from subject to background,
thus little need for fast lenses and fast sensors.

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...
Resampling to a monitors native resolution and "comparing" at full
screen
size is NO comparison at all.

Of course it is, when that's the output medium.

For a D800E?

The D800E has 10 or 16 MPix?

More than required for that job at more expense than necessary.

So why are you talking about a D800E,

Because that's what the thread is about.

when this subthread is
about detecting differences between 10 and 16 MPix cameras?

ONLY in your mind, NOT according to the header. Start a new thread if that's
what YOU want.


Might as well compare 6"x4" prints.

Which is a very useful comparison, when the output medium is
6x4 prints.

For a D800E?

The D800E has 10 or 16 MPix?

More than required for that job at more expense than necessary.

So why are you talking about a D800E, when this subthread is
about detecting differences between 10 and 16 MPix cameras?

ONLY in your mind, NOT according to the header. Start a new thread if that's
what YOU want.


If you think megapixel count is the most important part of a
camera, you have understood nothing.

If you think you require a $3,000 camera to take decent screen shots or
6x4"
prints YOU understand nothing.

I think I require a camera with a very sensitive sensor (aka
"high ISO with low noise" if I don't want to use flash in many
settings[1]. Such a camera with the lenses needed can easily
exceed $3,000.

If you think you need to spend $3,000 so you won't see noise in a 6x4" print
these days, you're well and truly out of touch.


Go ask bird photographers (shooting in the wild), their gear
easily exceeds $3,000 in just the long lenses.

Right, because they want more than 6x4" prints from them!!!!!!!!
There are far cheaper 15 times zoom compact camera's for those who don't.


Trevor.

Trevor wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message

Resampling to a monitors native resolution and "comparing" at full
screen
size is NO comparison at all.

Of course it is, when that's the output medium.

For a D800E?

The D800E has 10 or 16 MPix?

More than required for that job at more expense than necessary.

So why are you talking about a D800E,

Because that's what the thread is about.

This subthread is not.

when this subthread is
about detecting differences between 10 and 16 MPix cameras?

ONLY in your mind, NOT according to the header. Start a new thread if that's
what YOU want.

You're new to all this usenet thingy, right?
You're not aquainted with thread drift, either, right?

I probably have been using the usenet for longer than you're
on earth and certainly for longer than you even knew what the
internet was. For a few starters: I've been there before the
ethernal september, before spam, before UCE, before the web.

And you grasshopper try to tell me ...?


Might as well compare 6"x4" prints.

Which is a very useful comparison, when the output medium is
6x4 prints.

For a D800E?

The D800E has 10 or 16 MPix?

More than required for that job at more expense than necessary.

So why are you talking about a D800E, when this subthread is
about detecting differences between 10 and 16 MPix cameras?

ONLY in your mind, NOT according to the header. Start a new thread if that's
what YOU want.

Ah, yes, massa, you right massa, slave will now believe you
every stupid thing. NOT.


If you think megapixel count is the most important part of a
camera, you have understood nothing.

If you think you require a $3,000 camera to take decent screen shots or
6x4"
prints YOU understand nothing.

I think I require a camera with a very sensitive sensor (aka
"high ISO with low noise" if I don't want to use flash in many
settings[1]. Such a camera with the lenses needed can easily
exceed $3,000.

If you think you need to spend $3,000 so you won't see noise in a 6x4" print
these days, you're well and truly out of touch.

How much is a 400mm f/2.8 again? How much a 800mm f/5.6?

If you tell me how to get them new and a matching camera body for
$3,000 or less ...


Go ask bird photographers (shooting in the wild), their gear
easily exceeds $3,000 in just the long lenses.

Right, because they want more than 6x4" prints from them!!!!!!!!

| "'Multiple exclamation marks,' he went on, shaking his head,
| 'are a sure sign of a diseased mind.'" -- Terry Pratchett

There are far cheaper 15 times zoom compact camera's for those who don't.

Yep, the compact cameras are for those who don't want *any*
images under these circumstances.

-Wolfgang