A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Six out of Ten Nikon Shooters Wants 36MP or More



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 25th 17, 11:40 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 838
Default Six out of Ten Nikon Shooters Wants 36MP or More

On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 5:33:49 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 24 May 2017 23:05:19 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2017 02:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 24 May 2017 02:53:30 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 08:49:50 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 23 May 2017 15:54:58 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Akshally, 24MP seems to be ahead.
I'd vote for that, if I had any interest in Nikon camera gear.

Do the math silly and summarize above and bellow 25MP! :-ppp

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/erfl6wvs5v8mk3f/nr170522poll.png


I'm not sure why anyone wouldnt want the highest MP avaiable and just reduce
the maxium resultion to whatever suits you, is there any reason not to want
a 100MB or 1GB ?

because not everything needs the highest mp.

So don;t use teh highest I often reduce mine if I know it;s just a few pics to
send to someone. On the digital cameras I've owned thte;es always been
options to reduce the pixel count why don;t peole use those options.

... because I can't be bothered.

Virtually all of my shots are RAW and if I really need a smaller image
I do it in post-processing.

So why do camera makers have this option if it is of no use, or is it that
because you donlt have a need no one else should or does.


You asked a question,


No the qustion was (to nikon users) how many MP they need and I questioned
why people wouldn't want the highest possible/availible.


From a consumer standpoint, we've been conditioned to aways want "more",
even when we don't really need it. For example, look at the 0-60mph specifications
of automobiles sold today versus one sold in 1985 ... Grannie's modern but
mundane four door sedan is as quick as those past generation Ford Mustangs.

And where surveys like this fall short is informing the survey recipient on
what the trade-offs are. For example, product cost, or Signal/Noise ratio.


The option may be of use to some people for reasons which might
include the limits imposed by ISPs (and others) on the size of image
files.


Well I don't really see this link, I doubt anyone chooses a camera based
on their ISP, so I would reject that as a possibility.


Every time that any of us downsample an image for it to be emailed, or used
on a webpage ... we are doing so because of the knowledge that bandwidth
is limited and it will take forever to transmit a large data file.

Would it suprise me if you chose a camera based on your ISP, I would find
it rather strange but then again you do use a PC ;-)


And I use a Mac ... and regularly downsample my images when they're going
to be used on a webpage or emailed / texted / etc. Its a waste of resources
and manifests itself primarily as time, but may also be a higher service cost too.



I never said or implied what other people should or shouldn't do.

I'm pretty sure that if you need a high FPS it's better not to use RAW
but just use jpg which taks less time to write to the memory card or buffer.


The buffer is finite in storage capacity and because it is high speed, is a
expensive enough component for the camera manufacturer to keep track of
and 'optimize' financially.

Typically, today's cameras are configured at a fixed FPS and what will vary
depending on RAW vs JPEG is how many shots you get before the buffer
is full...eg, six versus sixteen, etc.

True but I have never felt that my photography has been limited by the
available frame rate. Specification frame rate is up to 6.5 fps


So why chose a camera like that as you say wouldn't a frame rate of 1 FPS
be enough for most shots you take.


A lower limit such as 1 FPS would allow the manufacturer to use a smaller
buffer and lower his manufacturing costs .. but the difference on just this
one factor (buffer memory) really isn't a primary cost driver today, so if not
enough consumers are willing to buy that 'slow' configuration, he's just shot
himself in his foot by raising his overall expenses through product fragmentation.


and
from everything I've read image size is not one of the things which
slows it down.


Bigger data files fill finite storage capacity (buffer) sooner, which outwardly
manifests itself as a difference in burst capacity.

So is there any reason to want to limit image size you can capture on a camera. ?


Because memory cards cost money too, even if that isn't immediately evident
as part of the trade-offs that this survey neglected to mention when they very
simplistically asked people, "do you want more?".


-hh
  #12  
Old May 25th 17, 01:38 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default Six out of Ten Nikon Shooters Wants 36MP or More

In article ,
-hh wrote:


From a consumer standpoint, we've been conditioned to aways want "more",
even when we don't really need it. For example, look at the 0-60mph
specifications
of automobiles sold today versus one sold in 1985 ... Grannie's modern but
mundane four door sedan is as quick as those past generation Ford Mustangs.


That that you do want is to beat the dude in the next lane... Are privy
of an Android device? If so then:

https://www.aptoide.com/search/view?search_top=com.gwl.racing&x=0&y=0
--
teleportation kills
  #13  
Old May 25th 17, 03:36 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 838
Default Six out of Ten Nikon Shooters Wants 36MP or More

On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 10:04:21 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 25 May 2017 11:40:22 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 5:33:49 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:



You asked a question,

No the qustion was (to nikon users) how many MP they need and I questioned
why people wouldn't want the highest possible/availible.


From a consumer standpoint, we've been conditioned to aways want "more",


That's something to do with being sencint and wanting more
from life in general.


Yes, and that's going to create a bias in a poorly designed survey.


even when we don't really need it. For example, look at
the 0-60mph specifications of automobiles sold today versus
one sold in 1985 ... Grannie's modern but mundane four door
sedan is as quick as those past generation Ford Mustangs.


and most likely cheaper too, would granny have brought a mustang unlikely.


Cost isn't really my point. My point is that a 1985 era 4-door
typically had a 0-60mph of 13-14 seconds ... and these don't
even exist anymore in today's marketplace.

Case in point:
2016 Chevrolet Malibu LT 1.5T ... 7.8 sec
1980 Ford Mustang Cobra ... 10.8 sec
1983 Chevrolet Camaro ... 9.4 sec

All of which despite today's fuel cost spikes, etc.

And where surveys like this fall short is informing
the survey recipient on what the trade-offs are. For
example, product cost, or Signal/Noise ratio.


yep I agree, which is why I was questioning the "NEED" criteria.
Some will buy what they need but most go for products that
exceed their present need.


Sure, but behaviorally, buying excess capacity vs current needs
tends to increase as the good becomes more durable (longer useful
lifespan): its an estimation factor for future capability needs.


The option may be of use to some people for reasons which might
include the limits imposed by ISPs (and others) on the size of image
files.

Well I don't really see this link, I doubt anyone chooses a camera based
on their ISP, so I would reject that as a possibility.


Every time that any of us downsample an image for it to be emailed, or used
on a webpage ... we are doing so because of the knowledge that bandwidth
is limited and it will take forever to transmit a large data file.


Few will buy a camera just for that purpose and I've not seen
one avaiibile for that purpose.


Most digital cameras already have the feature as standard: its
where there's options to shoot with reduced pixel counts.

And some professions use this extensively, such as news photo
journalists who are under tighter deadlines ... their workflow
becomes fastest when they don't have to post-process just to
reduce file size for transmission to the newsroom.



Would it suprise me if you chose a camera based on
your ISP, I would find it rather strange but then
again you do use a PC ;-)


And I use a Mac ... and regularly downsample my images
when they're going to be used on a webpage or emailed /
texted / etc. Its a waste of resources and manifests
itself primarily as time, but may also be a higher
service cost too.


I've done that in the past and if I know they are only
for web I don't need to set my camera to RAW 6000 x 4000,
I set it to 2560 x 1920 or less that way I save on card
& disc space and post processing.


See, you *are* aware of a feature used/desired by others.




The buffer is finite in storage capacity and because it is high speed,


That is why it fills up.
I'm not sure what sort of memeory chips it uses but would think
it is simialr to that used in graphics cards.


Its "faster" (higher bandwidth) which makes it more expensive,
which is why its part of the engineering trades that the
manufacturer will go through during product design.


Typically, today's cameras are configured at a fixed FPS and what
will vary depending on RAW vs JPEG is how many shots you get
before the buffer is full...eg, six versus sixteen, etc.


So a good reason to set lower pixel count for images then where you
don't needed for high quality printing or projection.


And/or skip RAW and use JPEG only.


True but I have never felt that my photography has been limited by the
available frame rate. Specification frame rate is up to 6.5 fps

So why chose a camera like that as you say wouldn't a frame rate of 1 FPS
be enough for most shots you take.


A lower limit such as 1 FPS would allow the manufacturer to use a smaller
buffer and lower his manufacturing costs .. but the difference on just this
one factor (buffer memory) really isn't a primary cost driver today, so if
not enough consumers are willing to buy that 'slow' configuration, he's
just shot himself in his foot by raising his overall expenses through
product fragmentation.


That's why asking peole what they need isn't a good idea ask them what
they want.


Only if you're bad at developing survey questions. For example, a
much better question to have asked would have been "How Much ($$)
would you be willing to spend to have XYZ?".


So is there any reason to want to limit image size you can
capture on a camera. ?


Because memory cards cost money too, even if that isn't
immediately evident as part of the trade-offs that this
survey neglected to mention when they very simplistically
asked people, "do you want more?".


They didn't even ask that and that IS MY POINT. askign peole what they need.
Another poll: how many megapixels do you need from your next Nikon camera
Open this up to anyone not just nikon.


Those would still be poorly designed survey questions.


So tell, me what you NEED from yuor next camera megapixel wise ?

I have No particualr need, I want more than I have but I don't
think having any more will help me get my parrakeets in flight
any better.
Unless of course it can beat slo-mo on the iphone.


Personally, I haven't really thought about it much, as I just
bought another new body last year (Canon 7Dmk2) for a relatively
short term need (another African Safari trip).

In general though, I'm finding ~20MP to be adequate most of
my time, so I'm more interested in "better" pixels (signal-noise),
better (cleaner signal) performance at higher ISO's, and of course,
faster bursts for action shots. I'm also tempted to move up
from 1080p video to 4K, although I know that this is just a
"future-proofing" and that doing so will mean an additional
expense of probably $6K for a new desktop capable of doing a
good job on editing that video format.

Probably next up for me will be to replace my current UW system,
as it dates from 2010 and back then, the capabilities I needed
were only able to be satisfied with a full blown housed dSLR.
The modern 4/3rds and Mirrorless stuff seems to have licked
the problem of super-wide angle, so a new setup would probably
be half the size/weight of my current, which would make taking
it on dive trips (airline carry-on constraints) much easier.
But considering that this setup cost $8K, I'd like to continue
to amortize it down for few more years...which helps pay for
the other toys, such as last year's 400mm f/4 DO IS purchase.

-hh
  #14  
Old May 25th 17, 05:12 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Six out of Ten Nikon Shooters Wants 36MP or More

On 2017-05-25 14:04:18 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

On Thursday, 25 May 2017 11:40:22 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 5:33:49 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:



You asked a question,

No the qustion was (to nikon users) how many MP they need and I questioned
why people wouldn't want the highest possible/availible.


From a consumer standpoint, we've been conditioned to aways want "more",


That's something to do with being sencint and wanting more from life in
general.

even when we don't really need it. For example, look at the 0-60mph
specifications
of automobiles sold today versus one sold in 1985 ... Grannie's modern but
mundane four door sedan is as quick as those past generation Ford Mustangs.


and most likely cheaper too, would granny have brought a mustang unlikely.


Perhaps not your (or my Grannie), but who knows what the "Little Old
Lady from Pasadena" would have bought.
"The Little Old Lady From Pasadena
(Go Granny, go, Granny, go, Granny, go)
Has a pretty little flowerbed of white gardenias;
(Go Granny, go, Granny, go, Granny, go)
But parked in a rickety old garage,
There's a brand new shiny super stocked Dodge.
And ev'rybody's sayin' that there's nobody meaner than
The Little Old Lady From Pasadena.
She drives real fast and she drives real hard,
She's the terror of Colorado Boulevard.
It's The Little Old Lady From Pasadena!
If you see her on the strip, don't try to choose her,
(Go Granny, go, Granny, go, Granny, go)
You might have a go-er, but you'll never lose her;
(Go Granny, go, Granny, go, Granny, go)
She's gonna get a ticket now, sooner or later,
'Cause she can't keep her foot off the accelerator.
And ev'rybody's sayin' that there's nobody meaner than
The Little Old Lady From Pasadena.
She drives real fast and she drives real hard,
She's the terror of Colorado Boulevard.
It's The Little Old Lady From Pasadena!
You'll see her all the time, just gettin' her kicks now,
(Go Granny, go, Granny, go, Granny, go)
With her four speed stick and a four - two - six now;
(Go Granny, go, Granny, go, Granny, go)
The guys come to race her from miles around,
But she'll give 'em a length, then she'll shut'em down.
And ev'rybody's sayin' that there's nobody meaner than
The Little Old Lady From Pasadena.
She drives real fast and she drives real hard,
She's the terror of Colorado Boulevard.
It's The Little Old Lady From Pasadena!
The Little Old Lady From Pasadena,
The Little Old Lady From Pasadena,"


--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #15  
Old May 25th 17, 05:53 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Six out of Ten Nikon Shooters Wants 36MP or More

On 2017-05-25 14:36:29 +0000, -hh said:

On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 10:04:21 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 25 May 2017 11:40:22 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 5:33:49 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:


You asked a question,

No the qustion was (to nikon users) how many MP they need and I questioned
why people wouldn't want the highest possible/availible.

From a consumer standpoint, we've been conditioned to aways want "more",


That's something to do with being sencint and wanting more
from life in general.


Yes, and that's going to create a bias in a poorly designed survey.

even when we don't really need it. For example, look at
the 0-60mph specifications of automobiles sold today versus
one sold in 1985 ... Grannie's modern but mundane four door
sedan is as quick as those past generation Ford Mustangs.


and most likely cheaper too, would granny have brought a mustang unlikely.


Cost isn't really my point. My point is that a 1985 era 4-door
typically had a 0-60mph of 13-14 seconds ... and these don't
even exist anymore in today's marketplace.

Case in point:
2016 Chevrolet Malibu LT 1.5T ... 7.8 sec
1980 Ford Mustang Cobra ... 10.8 sec
1983 Chevrolet Camaro ... 9.4 sec


....and many of those 0-60 times were irrelevant to the experience of
having 1960's era pony/muscle cars to drive back in the 1960's. Driving
those cars back then was a somewhat visceral experience.

My first taste of that "kick in the butt" torque and acceleration was
from my father's 1958 Desoto Firedome with its 361 cid hemi and a 0-60
of 7.8 sec. Amazing for its time.

My personal muscle came with a 1966 Buick "Wildcat 445" with a 425 cid,
340 BHP punch, and then a 1968 Olds 4-4-2 which churned out 7.0 sec
0-60 times.

That all came to an end around the time of 1970's fuel rationing and
the "double nickle" speed limits. That is until todays' technology
finally caught up with, and surpassed those glory days.

All of which despite today's fuel cost spikes, etc.


Today I have tamed down a bit with my Mercedes E350 (my second one)
which replaced my true Teutonic beast, my S600 with its V-12.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/g37x3wrqakwun89/AAA2k9nbxmuUbUJkWwzHdVW5a


--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #16  
Old May 25th 17, 06:59 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,692
Default Six out of Ten Nikon Shooters Wants 36MP or More

On Thu, 25 May 2017 09:53:10 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

Case in point:
2016 Chevrolet Malibu LT 1.5T ... 7.8 sec
1980 Ford Mustang Cobra ... 10.8 sec
1983 Chevrolet Camaro ... 9.4 sec


...and many of those 0-60 times were irrelevant to the experience of
having 1960's era pony/muscle cars to drive back in the 1960's. Driving
those cars back then was a somewhat visceral experience.


Those times above weren't muscle car times.

My first taste of that "kick in the butt" torque and acceleration was
from my father's 1958 Desoto Firedome with its 361 cid hemi and a 0-60
of 7.8 sec. Amazing for its time.


HP/weight ratio is everything.

My personal muscle came with a 1966 Buick "Wildcat 445" with a 425 cid,
340 BHP punch, and then a 1968 Olds 4-4-2 which churned out 7.0 sec
0-60 times.


I drove a rare tri-power 442 back then. That car scared the **** out
of me. One reason for slow 0-60 times back then is pretty easy - no
traction for all that HP. No stability/traction control, it's hard to
get good times. And again, those cars were pretty heavy.

Remember when the magic number was *1* HP per cubic inch? Anything
with that was a monster. Today, 2HP/CI is nothing at all. Plus today's
cars are much more responsive and fun to drive. Technology is
beautiful. I do agree with the "visceral" bit about those old cars,
but I think that had a lot to do with fear...
  #17  
Old May 25th 17, 07:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PAS[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 595
Default Six out of Ten Nikon Shooters Wants 36MP or More

On 5/25/2017 1:59 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Thu, 25 May 2017 09:53:10 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

Case in point:
2016 Chevrolet Malibu LT 1.5T ... 7.8 sec
1980 Ford Mustang Cobra ... 10.8 sec
1983 Chevrolet Camaro ... 9.4 sec

...and many of those 0-60 times were irrelevant to the experience of
having 1960's era pony/muscle cars to drive back in the 1960's. Driving
those cars back then was a somewhat visceral experience.

Those times above weren't muscle car times.


Correct. Those 80's cars were fro the "smog engine" days. The American
makers had to put smog controls on their engines and they were crippled
as a result, I gather because they simply added smog control without
making any innovations to maintain power.



My first taste of that "kick in the butt" torque and acceleration was
from my father's 1958 Desoto Firedome with its 361 cid hemi and a 0-60
of 7.8 sec. Amazing for its time.

HP/weight ratio is everything.

My personal muscle came with a 1966 Buick "Wildcat 445" with a 425 cid,
340 BHP punch, and then a 1968 Olds 4-4-2 which churned out 7.0 sec
0-60 times.

I drove a rare tri-power 442 back then. That car scared the **** out
of me. One reason for slow 0-60 times back then is pretty easy - no
traction for all that HP. No stability/traction control, it's hard to
get good times. And again, those cars were pretty heavy.

Remember when the magic number was *1* HP per cubic inch? Anything
with that was a monster. Today, 2HP/CI is nothing at all. Plus today's
cars are much more responsive and fun to drive. Technology is
beautiful. I do agree with the "visceral" bit about those old cars,
but I think that had a lot to do with fear...



  #18  
Old May 25th 17, 08:55 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 838
Default Six out of Ten Nikon Shooters Wants 36MP or More

On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 2:45:55 PM UTC-4, PAS wrote:
On 5/25/2017 1:59 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Thu, 25 May 2017 09:53:10 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

Case in point:
2016 Chevrolet Malibu LT 1.5T ... 7.8 sec
1980 Ford Mustang Cobra ... 10.8 sec
1983 Chevrolet Camaro ... 9.4 sec
...and many of those 0-60 times were irrelevant to the experience of
having 1960's era pony/muscle cars to drive back in the 1960's. Driving
those cars back then was a somewhat visceral experience.

Those times above weren't muscle car times.


Correct. Those 80's cars were fro the "smog engine" days. The American
makers had to put smog controls on their engines and they were crippled
as a result, I gather because they simply added smog control without
making any innovations to maintain power.


Pollution control systems started much earlier in the USA, with
the introduction of PCV valve in the early/mid 1960's. The PCV
valve didn't rob engines of performance, so it wasn't particularly
noteworthy. Ditto for the introduction of evaporation control
systems on fuel tanks in the early 70s. But increased EPA
standards did plod along during the 70s, and basic engine
performance suffered as many manufacturers chose to detune
existing designs, rather than to invest in new designs. The
latter ended up happening when unleaded gasoline and catalytic
converters rolled out in 1975 ... even though this was still
performance-standards based, as the last US-spec street legal
automobile allowed to run leaded gas without a Cat being the
Honda Civic in 1979 (likely in no small part to it having but
a 1.2 liter motor).

Moving into the 1980s, much of what was keeping performance down
was the relatively high cost of fuel which put emphasis more
on fuel economy, although weight/aero optimizations generally
also waited until the digital engineering age for major gains.
Similarly, forced induction through turbocharged engines waited
until turbo systems became sufficiently reliable & accepted.
The current trend, driven by regulation, is for even more
vehicles to abandon normally aspirated and adopt forced induction.


-hh
  #19  
Old May 25th 17, 10:37 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Diesel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 346
Default Six out of Ten Nikon Shooters Wants 36MP or More

android
Wed, 24 May 2017
04:27:10 GMT in rec.photo.digital, wrote:

In article
,
RichA wrote:

On Tuesday, 23 May 2017 02:37:10 UTC-4, android wrote:
In article
,
RichA wrote:

Amateurs with no grasp of reality.

So you voted? How many times and how often?
--
teleportation kills


Not as many as the average Democrat.


You yankies/canaduckians should reeeely try to find out the
original meaning of the words "democrat" and "republican"! ;-PPP


Some of us already know. g


--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.
  #20  
Old May 25th 17, 11:20 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Six out of Ten Nikon Shooters Wants 36MP or More

On Thu, 25 May 2017 02:33:45 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 24 May 2017 23:05:19 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2017 02:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 24 May 2017 02:53:30 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 08:49:50 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 23 May 2017 15:54:58 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Akshally, 24MP seems to be ahead.
I'd vote for that, if I had any interest in Nikon camera gear.

Do the math silly and summarize above and bellow 25MP! :-ppp

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/erfl6wvs5v8mk3f/nr170522poll.png


I'm not sure why anyone wouldnt want the highest MP avaiable and just reduce
the maxium resultion to whatever suits you, is there any reason not to want a 100MB or 1GB ?

because not everything needs the highest mp.

So don;t use teh highest I often reduce mine if I know it;s just a few pics to send to someone. On the digital cameras I've owned thte;es always been options to reduce the pixel count why don;t peole use those options.

... because I can't be bothered.

Virtually all of my shots are RAW and if I really need a smaller image
I do it in post-processing.

So why do camera makers have this option if it is of no use, or is it that because you donlt have a need no one else should or does.


You asked a question,


No the qustion was (to nikon users) how many MP they need and I questioned why people wouldn't want the highest possible/availible.

I'm not sure how you work out what you need as that would imply you'd be unlikely to upgrade to a new camera.

and I gave an answer for my personal situation.


But that answer didn't make sense to me and was flawed.

Now you have asked two further questions.


I'm inquisitive I guess.


The option may be of use to some people for reasons which might
include the limits imposed by ISPs (and others) on the size of image
files.


Well I don't really see this link, I doubt anyone chooses a camera based on their ISP, so I would reject that as a possibility.

Would it suprise me if you chose a camera based on your ISP, I would find it rather strange but then again you do use a PC ;-)


Is your circle of friends so small that only one ISP is involved?



I never said or implied what other people should or shouldn't do.

I'm pretty sure that if you need a high FPS it's better not to use RAW but just use jpg which taks less time to write to the memory card or buffer.


True but I have never felt that my photography has been limited by the
available frame rate. Specification frame rate is up to 6.5 fps


So why chose a camera like that as you say wouldn't a frame rate of 1 FPS be enough for most shots you take.

and
from everything I've read image size is not one of the things which
slows it down.


So is there any reason to want to limit image size you can capture on a camera. ?

Yes. File size.

And it seems ridiculous to use a 100mP camerea to produce 5mB JPGs.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax K1 looks good. 36mp, 5-axis stabilization, weather sealed, FF for $1800 Bill W Digital Photography 34 February 26th 16 11:00 PM
Pentax K1 looks good. 36mp, 5-axis stabilization, weather sealed, FF for $1800 Alfred Molon[_4_] Digital Photography 0 February 18th 16 08:55 PM
DTown for Nikon Shooters Savageduck[_2_] Digital SLR Cameras 2 May 9th 09 07:04 AM
Challenge for Nikon and Canon shooters no_name 35mm Photo Equipment 31 November 22nd 05 03:33 AM
PGA Championship: lots of Nikon shooters columbotrek 35mm Photo Equipment 6 August 20th 04 03:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.