Silly mental ramblings, I know.
On 4/27/07, karl shah-jenner <
shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Darin Heinz"
: But, would this explain why people are willing to spend such prices for
: relatively low-resolution cameras?
:
: In my case, as a film shooter, I was looking for one so that I could
shoot
: for the web, in RAW, without wasting huge segments of my CF card in the
: field. The project I'm planning will use several hundred images, all of
: which are about 1000 pixels on the long side. Right now, a 10-mp camera
is
: gross overkill; by the time I'm ready to get a full-fledged honest-to-God
: digital SLR, 10 megapixels will be as valuable as a 5-1/4" floppy disk.
:
: But back to the original question. How are the prices on a 2.6-mp camera
: driven so high -- not by the sellers, but by the buyers?
Possibly because some of them take brilliant pictures.. Some have very
good image 'colour fidelity' - some have better UV and IR sensitivity than
the current crop of cameras, all good reasons..
..and then there's this
http://news.com.com/2100-1041_3-6156398.html or this
and thinking further, a 3Mp camera yeilds a print of 5x7 inch at full res
- to double this and go to 10 x 14" you need a 12.6Mp camera. See, that's
a huge leap up to simply double the print size in linear length, so
stepping up from a 3 to a 4/5/6/8 Mp camera usually involves a substantial
investment for not a huge benefit in image size. Why make a jump from a 3
megapixel camera to a 6 when all you get is a mere 30% linear length
increase in final image size ?
an answer here perhaps
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
personally I feel the same as Ken does when he writes on the link at the
bottom of the page above "I use both digital and film cameras all the time.
They each serve a different purpose"
k
--
Alex Georgiadis
