If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!
On 4/19/2018 5:44 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil wrote: size matters. full frame sensors have about a stop less noise than crop sensors, which have about a stop less noise than micro 4/3rds, which have a lot less noise than compact cameras and certainly cellphone cameras, which have tiny sensors and very aggressive noise reduction (which works fairly well, but not without compromise). So a bigger sensor means less noise for the same sensor type. Nospam ignores the fact that his reply to my comment was comparing _cameras_, not the noise level of a single sensor cell. i was comparing cameras. Nope. wrong. At 12mp, the final output of that 8x10 camera will not produce an image with the same linearity and gradation accuracy of a camera with a much smaller sensor but two times as many pixels. So, the inevitable errors in the final image is also "noise", and more relevant than what the individual sensor cell can capture because it's the image that one looks at, not the sensor cell's noise level. false. Once again, you are wrong. Do the math, then come back with the same BS. i've done the math, as have many others. simple example: 12 mp cellphone camera versus 12mp full frame slr. The comparison would be between the 12mp 8x10 camera vs a _20mp_ smaller sensored camera. So, you not only were not comparing the cameras under discussion, but your math is irrelevant. NOBODY was talking about two cameras with the same resolution but you. -- best regards, Neil |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!
In article , Neil
wrote: At 12mp, the final output of that 8x10 camera will not produce an image with the same linearity and gradation accuracy of a camera with a much smaller sensor but two times as many pixels. So, the inevitable errors in the final image is also "noise", and more relevant than what the individual sensor cell can capture because it's the image that one looks at, not the sensor cell's noise level. false. Once again, you are wrong. Do the math, then come back with the same BS. i've done the math, as have many others. simple example: 12 mp cellphone camera versus 12mp full frame slr. The comparison would be between the 12mp 8x10 camera vs a _20mp_ smaller sensored camera. that would be comparing *two* variables and then attributing any difference to only one of them. in other words, an invalid comparison. and actually, it's more than just two variables since the lenses will be different, the sensor technology is different, the exposure and raw processing will be different as well as many other factors. So, you not only were not comparing the cameras under discussion, but your math is irrelevant. math is never irrelevant. if not for the math (and physics), there wouldn't be any cameras. NOBODY was talking about two cameras with the same resolution but you. that's the only proper comparison. if more than one variable is different, then anything goes. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!
On 4/20/2018 4:55 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 20 April 2018 04:00:41 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:02:52 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Neil wrote: If that 12 megapixel is the actual resolution and isn't a typo, I'd much rather carry my Olympus TG-4. while it may be easier to carry, it has much smaller pixels, therefore much higher noise. "Much" higher noise? yes. I seriously doubt it. then you don't understand physics. S/N has more parameters than just pixel size. so what? the dominant factor for noise is pixel size. larger pixels collect more light. basic physics. It's not so much that they collect more light but that there is less random variation in the number of photons which each cell collects. I don't think that has anything to do with it, noise IS defined as unwanted signal in the device and associated circuitry. Pertinent to this conversation, the question is whether a smaller sensor of much higher resolution (my TG-4) will have sufficiently more noise than the 12mp 8x10 to produce lower-quality images of the same size. I doubt it. -- best regards, Neil |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!
On 4/20/2018 3:52 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil wrote: At 12mp, the final output of that 8x10 camera will not produce an image with the same linearity and gradation accuracy of a camera with a much smaller sensor but two times as many pixels. So, the inevitable errors in the final image is also "noise", and more relevant than what the individual sensor cell can capture because it's the image that one looks at, not the sensor cell's noise level. false. Once again, you are wrong. Do the math, then come back with the same BS. i've done the math, as have many others. simple example: 12 mp cellphone camera versus 12mp full frame slr. The comparison would be between the 12mp 8x10 camera vs a _20mp_ smaller sensored camera. that would be comparing *two* variables and then attributing any difference to only one of them. in other words, an invalid comparison. Not at all. I'm talking about the resulting images, which is all that I care about. You're talking about sensor cell performance which is not an issue, since it's obvious that larger sensors will have lower S/N ratios than smaller ones. Only you are talking about that aspect in response to my comment. and actually, it's more than just two variables since the lenses will be different, the sensor technology is different, the exposure and raw processing will be different as well as many other factors. My comment was ONLY about preferring to carry a smaller, much higher resolution camera. All pertinent factors, such as those you mentioned are taken into consideration because I'm only comparing the resulting images of subjects. I doubt that sensor noise will be the most degrading element in that comparison. -- best regards, Neil |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!
In article , Neil
wrote: At 12mp, the final output of that 8x10 camera will not produce an image with the same linearity and gradation accuracy of a camera with a much smaller sensor but two times as many pixels. So, the inevitable errors in the final image is also "noise", and more relevant than what the individual sensor cell can capture because it's the image that one looks at, not the sensor cell's noise level. false. Once again, you are wrong. Do the math, then come back with the same BS. i've done the math, as have many others. simple example: 12 mp cellphone camera versus 12mp full frame slr. The comparison would be between the 12mp 8x10 camera vs a _20mp_ smaller sensored camera. that would be comparing *two* variables and then attributing any difference to only one of them. in other words, an invalid comparison. Not at all. yes at all. you *can't* attribute a difference in image quality to any one factor when multiple factors are different. I'm talking about the resulting images, which is all that I care about. You're talking about sensor cell performance which is not an issue, since it's obvious that larger sensors will have lower S/N ratios than smaller ones. apparently not obvious to everyone. Only you are talking about that aspect in response to my comment. because i understand the physics involved. and actually, it's more than just two variables since the lenses will be different, the sensor technology is different, the exposure and raw processing will be different as well as many other factors. My comment was ONLY about preferring to carry a smaller, much higher resolution camera. All pertinent factors, such as those you mentioned are taken into consideration because I'm only comparing the resulting images of subjects. I doubt that sensor noise will be the most degrading element in that comparison. most people prefer to carry smaller cameras than lug an 8x10 behemoth around, or even an slr. often, it's a worthwhile tradeoff. sometimes it isn't. a photo studio may choose to use a large format camera for the utmost quality because it *doesn't* have to be moved. the subjects come to *it*, not the other way around. pick the best tool for the job. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!
On 4/23/2018 5:47 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 20 April 2018 20:53:51 UTC+1, Neil wrote: On 4/20/2018 4:55 AM, Whisky-dave wrote: On Friday, 20 April 2018 04:00:41 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:02:52 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Neil wrote: If that 12 megapixel is the actual resolution and isn't a typo, I'd much rather carry my Olympus TG-4. while it may be easier to carry, it has much smaller pixels, therefore much higher noise. "Much" higher noise? yes. I seriously doubt it. then you don't understand physics. S/N has more parameters than just pixel size. so what? the dominant factor for noise is pixel size. larger pixels collect more light. basic physics. It's not so much that they collect more light but that there is less random variation in the number of photons which each cell collects. I don't think that has anything to do with it, noise IS defined as unwanted signal in the device and associated circuitry. Pertinent to this conversation, the question is whether a smaller sensor of much higher resolution (my TG-4) will have sufficiently more noise than the 12mp 8x10 to produce lower-quality images of the same size. I doubt it. You're looking atb the wrong things. Whether the sensor is smaller or lager is irrelivent it;s how it's made and the construction which defines noise NOT size. what do you mean by sufficiently more noise ? A few folks who replied to my post thought that noise would be a differentiating factor between the TG-4 and the 8x10 cameras, and cited sensor size as the reason. I agree with you that noise is determined by the design, components and construction of electronic equipment. The only thing I'd be "looking at" would be prints of the same size from the two cameras, and the comparison would be which print best represents the subject. I'd bet on the smaller sensor with higher resolution. -- best regards, Neil |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!
On 4/23/2018 9:09 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 23 April 2018 13:28:07 UTC+1, Neil wrote: On 4/23/2018 5:47 AM, Whisky-dave wrote: On Friday, 20 April 2018 20:53:51 UTC+1, Neil wrote: On 4/20/2018 4:55 AM, Whisky-dave wrote: On Friday, 20 April 2018 04:00:41 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:02:52 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Neil wrote: If that 12 megapixel is the actual resolution and isn't a typo, I'd much rather carry my Olympus TG-4. while it may be easier to carry, it has much smaller pixels, therefore much higher noise. "Much" higher noise? yes. I seriously doubt it. then you don't understand physics. S/N has more parameters than just pixel size. so what? the dominant factor for noise is pixel size. larger pixels collect more light. basic physics. It's not so much that they collect more light but that there is less random variation in the number of photons which each cell collects. I don't think that has anything to do with it, noise IS defined as unwanted signal in the device and associated circuitry. Pertinent to this conversation, the question is whether a smaller sensor of much higher resolution (my TG-4) will have sufficiently more noise than the 12mp 8x10 to produce lower-quality images of the same size. I doubt it. You're looking atb the wrong things. Whether the sensor is smaller or lager is irrelivent it;s how it's made and the construction which defines noise NOT size. what do you mean by sufficiently more noise ? A few folks who replied to my post thought that noise would be a differentiating factor between the TG-4 and the 8x10 cameras, and cited sensor size as the reason. I agree with you that noise is determined by the design, components and construction of electronic equipment. The only thing I'd be "looking at" would be prints of the same size from the two cameras, and the comparison would be which print best represents the subject. I'd bet on the smaller sensor with higher resolution. you'd probably be wrong, otherwise they'd be sending small sensors into space, they aren't, they use big sensors the bigger the better in most cases. So, you are another thinking that the differences in noise between the 8x10's and a smaller sensor would affect print quality! Why did you ask "what do you mean by sufficiently more noise"? The advantage of large sensors is their performance in extreme low-light conditions, which is why they use them in space. Resolution and image flaws (as well as color and other parameters) are handled in post-processing for every final image I've seen in that usage; the "raw" images are not that impressive. -- best regards, Neil |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!
On 4/24/2018 5:20 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 23 April 2018 21:16:32 UTC+1, Neil wrote: On 4/23/2018 9:09 AM, Whisky-dave wrote: On Monday, 23 April 2018 13:28:07 UTC+1, Neil wrote: On 4/23/2018 5:47 AM, Whisky-dave wrote: On Friday, 20 April 2018 20:53:51 UTC+1, Neil wrote: On 4/20/2018 4:55 AM, Whisky-dave wrote: On Friday, 20 April 2018 04:00:41 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:02:52 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Neil wrote: If that 12 megapixel is the actual resolution and isn't a typo, I'd much rather carry my Olympus TG-4. while it may be easier to carry, it has much smaller pixels, therefore much higher noise. "Much" higher noise? yes. I seriously doubt it. then you don't understand physics. S/N has more parameters than just pixel size. so what? the dominant factor for noise is pixel size. larger pixels collect more light. basic physics. It's not so much that they collect more light but that there is less random variation in the number of photons which each cell collects. I don't think that has anything to do with it, noise IS defined as unwanted signal in the device and associated circuitry. Pertinent to this conversation, the question is whether a smaller sensor of much higher resolution (my TG-4) will have sufficiently more noise than the 12mp 8x10 to produce lower-quality images of the same size. I doubt it. You're looking atb the wrong things. Whether the sensor is smaller or lager is irrelivent it;s how it's made and the construction which defines noise NOT size. what do you mean by sufficiently more noise ? A few folks who replied to my post thought that noise would be a differentiating factor between the TG-4 and the 8x10 cameras, and cited sensor size as the reason. I agree with you that noise is determined by the design, components and construction of electronic equipment. The only thing I'd be "looking at" would be prints of the same size from the two cameras, and the comparison would be which print best represents the subject. I'd bet on the smaller sensor with higher resolution. you'd probably be wrong, otherwise they'd be sending small sensors into space, they aren't, they use big sensors the bigger the better in most cases. So, you are another thinking that the differences in noise between the 8x10's and a smaller sensor would affect print quality! Yes it would depending on what's expected, One reason for using a large sensor as with film was so that you didn't need to enlarge the image as much so you'd get less grain, noise as such didn't really exist back in film days other than being part of the grain. Noise is sensors is quite differnt. I disagree that it is "quite different". In electronics, noise is an variation in the output from a source signal. In film, grain is just one of the factors that can cause the resulting image (e.g. the "output") to vary from the subject (e.g. the "source signal"). Why did you ask "what do you mean by sufficiently more noise"? because I"ve no idea what you mean can you explain ? Simplest way to put it is that the noise of the smaller sensor would cause a larger misrepresentation of the subject than the much lower resolution of the 8x10 camera. Since you claimed that it would, the reason for asking the question is puzzling. The advantage of large sensors is their performance in extreme low-light conditions, amonst other thin gs. which is why they use them in space. Resolution and image flaws (as well as color and other parameters) are handled in post-processing for every final image I've seen in that usage; the "raw" images are not that impressive. The raw gives you the ability to adjust images more accuratley and better repeatability than a JOOC image could be. JOOC is irrelevant if both cameras under discussion shoot raw. The TG-4 does, but I don't know what the 8x10 does other than shoot monochrome only, which pretty much guarantees a worse representation of anything other than still subjects. -- best regards, Neil |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!
On 4/24/2018 9:20 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 13:37:53 UTC+1, Neil wrote: On 4/24/2018 5:20 AM, Whisky-dave wrote: On Monday, 23 April 2018 21:16:32 UTC+1, Neil wrote: On 4/23/2018 9:09 AM, Whisky-dave wrote: On Monday, 23 April 2018 13:28:07 UTC+1, Neil wrote: On 4/23/2018 5:47 AM, Whisky-dave wrote: On Friday, 20 April 2018 20:53:51 UTC+1, Neil wrote: On 4/20/2018 4:55 AM, Whisky-dave wrote: On Friday, 20 April 2018 04:00:41 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:02:52 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Neil wrote: If that 12 megapixel is the actual resolution and isn't a typo, I'd much rather carry my Olympus TG-4. while it may be easier to carry, it has much smaller pixels, therefore much higher noise. "Much" higher noise? yes. I seriously doubt it. then you don't understand physics. S/N has more parameters than just pixel size. so what? the dominant factor for noise is pixel size. larger pixels collect more light. basic physics. It's not so much that they collect more light but that there is less random variation in the number of photons which each cell collects. I don't think that has anything to do with it, noise IS defined as unwanted signal in the device and associated circuitry. Pertinent to this conversation, the question is whether a smaller sensor of much higher resolution (my TG-4) will have sufficiently more noise than the 12mp 8x10 to produce lower-quality images of the same size. I doubt it. You're looking atb the wrong things. Whether the sensor is smaller or lager is irrelivent it;s how it's made and the construction which defines noise NOT size. what do you mean by sufficiently more noise ? A few folks who replied to my post thought that noise would be a differentiating factor between the TG-4 and the 8x10 cameras, and cited sensor size as the reason. I agree with you that noise is determined by the design, components and construction of electronic equipment. The only thing I'd be "looking at" would be prints of the same size from the two cameras, and the comparison would be which print best represents the subject. I'd bet on the smaller sensor with higher resolution. you'd probably be wrong, otherwise they'd be sending small sensors into space, they aren't, they use big sensors the bigger the better in most cases. So, you are another thinking that the differences in noise between the 8x10's and a smaller sensor would affect print quality! Yes it would depending on what's expected, One reason for using a large sensor as with film was so that you didn't need to enlarge the image as much so you'd get less grain, noise as such didn't really exist back in film days other than being part of the grain. Noise is sensors is quite differnt. I disagree that it is "quite different". In electronics, noise is an variation in the output from a source signal. No it is NOT. Noise is defined as unwanted signal. Lik students talking at the back of the class. That is correct for one usage of the term. However, you must be aware that there are others that are just as valid because they're analogous but not measured in the same way? For example, when one refers to the S/N of audio speakers, it is a figure assigned that does not take into consideration any particular environment, so "noise" is therefore not an external factor as it is in your example. Let's move on. In film, grain is just one of the factors that can cause the resulting image (e.g. the "output") to vary from the subject (e.g. the "source signal"). sort of right but what is your source signal ? The subject being photographed. Why did you ask "what do you mean by sufficiently more noise"? because I"ve no idea what you mean can you explain ? Simplest way to put it is that the noise of the smaller sensor would cause a larger misrepresentation of the subject than the much lower resolution of the 8x10 camera. Since you claimed that it would, the reason for asking the question is puzzling. because sufficiently means very little and isn't very accurate or scientific. We can travel sufficiently close to the speed of sound anyhting esle as virtually meaningless. In this context, "sufficiently" means "...enough to be the primary reason for a poorer representation of the subject". which is why they use them in space. Resolution and image flaws (as well as color and other parameters) are handled in post-processing for every final image I've seen in that usage; the "raw" images are not that impressive. The raw gives you the ability to adjust images more accuratley and better repeatability than a JOOC image could be. JOOC is irrelevant if both cameras under discussion shoot raw. No it isn't if you're using JOOC. The TG-4 does, but I don't know what the 8x10 does other than shoot monochrome only, which pretty much guarantees a worse representation of anything other than still subjects. Not if yuo need the tilt and shift functions which is what this camera is for yuor TG-4 CAN NOT do that. I don't see any bellows on that camera, and it would be just as easy to attach one to the TG-4, if that mattered, because it does have interchangeable lenses and standard thread mounts. So, it doesn't and we're back to basics: which represents most subjects better, higher resolution *in color* or lower S/N in monochrome? -- best regards, Neil |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
A camera with a sensor bigger than 8 by 10 inches??!!
On 4/25/2018 5:11 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 16:29:27 UTC+1, Neil wrote: On 4/24/2018 9:20 AM, Whisky-dave wrote: On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 13:37:53 UTC+1, Neil wrote: On 4/24/2018 5:20 AM, Whisky-dave wrote: On Monday, 23 April 2018 21:16:32 UTC+1, Neil wrote: On 4/23/2018 9:09 AM, Whisky-dave wrote: On Monday, 23 April 2018 13:28:07 UTC+1, Neil wrote: On 4/23/2018 5:47 AM, Whisky-dave wrote: On Friday, 20 April 2018 20:53:51 UTC+1, Neil wrote: On 4/20/2018 4:55 AM, Whisky-dave wrote: On Friday, 20 April 2018 04:00:41 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:02:52 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Neil wrote: If that 12 megapixel is the actual resolution and isn't a typo, I'd much rather carry my Olympus TG-4. while it may be easier to carry, it has much smaller pixels, therefore much higher noise. "Much" higher noise? yes. I seriously doubt it. then you don't understand physics. S/N has more parameters than just pixel size. so what? the dominant factor for noise is pixel size. larger pixels collect more light. basic physics. It's not so much that they collect more light but that there is less random variation in the number of photons which each cell collects. I don't think that has anything to do with it, noise IS defined as unwanted signal in the device and associated circuitry. Pertinent to this conversation, the question is whether a smaller sensor of much higher resolution (my TG-4) will have sufficiently more noise than the 12mp 8x10 to produce lower-quality images of the same size. I doubt it. You're looking atb the wrong things. Whether the sensor is smaller or lager is irrelivent it;s how it's made and the construction which defines noise NOT size. what do you mean by sufficiently more noise ? A few folks who replied to my post thought that noise would be a differentiating factor between the TG-4 and the 8x10 cameras, and cited sensor size as the reason. I agree with you that noise is determined by the design, components and construction of electronic equipment. The only thing I'd be "looking at" would be prints of the same size from the two cameras, and the comparison would be which print best represents the subject. I'd bet on the smaller sensor with higher resolution. you'd probably be wrong, otherwise they'd be sending small sensors into space, they aren't, they use big sensors the bigger the better in most cases. So, you are another thinking that the differences in noise between the 8x10's and a smaller sensor would affect print quality! Yes it would depending on what's expected, One reason for using a large sensor as with film was so that you didn't need to enlarge the image as much so you'd get less grain, noise as such didn't really exist back in film days other than being part of the grain. Noise is sensors is quite differnt. I disagree that it is "quite different". In electronics, noise is an variation in the output from a source signal. No it is NOT. Noise is defined as unwanted signal. Lik students talking at the back of the class. That is correct for one usage of the term. However, you must be aware that there are others that are just as valid because they're analogous but not measured in the same way? Then how are they analogous. For example, when one refers to the S/N of audio speakers, it is a figure assigned that does not take into consideration any particular environment, so "noise" is therefore not an external factor as it is in your example. Let's move on. You're talking crap, we used to test loudspeakers here, we had one of the few anachoic chambers in the country. Noise is NOT a feature of speakers. They DO NOT have a S/N ratio. Oh, you think I made up that usage? I did not, and I don't particularly agree with it, either. Usage is about communication, and that usage communicates with many folks even though it doesn't remotely represent your limited definition of noise being an external factor. Put your hands over your ears and yell "blah blah" all you want. No one cares. In film, grain is just one of the factors that can cause the resulting image (e.g. the "output") to vary from the subject (e.g. the "source signal"). sort of right but what is your source signal ? The subject being photographed. SO what 'noise' comes from this source. See you even have this wrong NOISE does not come from the subject, well unless they are students of course, then it's almost pure noise. Why did you ask "what do you mean by sufficiently more noise"? because I"ve no idea what you mean can you explain ? Simplest way to put it is that the noise of the smaller sensor would cause a larger misrepresentation of the subject than the much lower resolution of the 8x10 camera. Since you claimed that it would, the reason for asking the question is puzzling. because sufficiently means very little and isn't very accurate or scientific. We can travel sufficiently close to the speed of sound anyhting esle as virtually meaningless. In this context, "sufficiently" means "...enough to be the primary reason for a poorer representation of the subject". So pretty meaningless then as I suspected. Which camera better represents the subject would be quite obvious when looking at two prints of the same size. which is why they use them in space. Resolution and image flaws (as well as color and other parameters) are handled in post-processing for every final image I've seen in that usage; the "raw" images are not that impressive. The raw gives you the ability to adjust images more accuratley and better repeatability than a JOOC image could be. JOOC is irrelevant if both cameras under discussion shoot raw. No it isn't if you're using JOOC. Keep setting up your straw men, I'll keep shooting them. The TG-4 does, but I don't know what the 8x10 does other than shoot monochrome only, which pretty much guarantees a worse representation of anything other than still subjects. Not if yuo need the tilt and shift functions which is what this camera is for yuor TG-4 CAN NOT do that. I don't see any bellows on that camera, Then go to specsavers, or another opticians. and it would be just as easy to attach one to the TG-4, yeah sure it would. Why do you believe that your personal limitations apply to everyone? If I wanted to attach a bellows to the TG-4 for some odd reason, the task would take less than an afternoon. I'd take one of my TG-4 lenses to the closest MakerSpace ( 10 minute drive), do a 3D scan of the lens mount, send the file to the CNC machine and attach the new mount to one of my bellows. No big deal at all. if that mattered, because it does have interchangeable lenses and standard thread mounts. So, it doesn't and we're back to basics: a pin hole camera is back to basics which represents most subjects better, The 10X8 camera isn't for most subjects any more than the space shuttle was meant as public transport to the ISS. I see no particular value to that camera. At 12mp it can do nothing that can't be done better with dozens of cameras at a fraction of its cost. Dance all you want, set up as many straw men as you want, and refuse to give the obvious answer to the original question. No one cares. higher resolution *in color* or lower S/N in monochrome? -- best regards, Neil |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Trying to print a camera shot bigger than A4 | edigi | Digital Photography | 2 | May 13th 07 09:35 AM |
Printing longer than 44 inches | shockey | Digital Photography | 0 | February 10th 05 02:12 AM |
MegaPixels and Inches Explained | PR | General Photography Techniques | 0 | February 12th 04 06:40 AM |