On Wed, May 20, 2009 01:01, mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > David I really don't disagree with you but that is also just assuming a > pixel is a pixel. That's not the case either. The full frame cameras tend > to have larger pixels that produce less noise than stuffing more pixels in > a smaller space. That's certainly true. I own the D700 because of that; I'd really prefer a DX-type system since I like telephoto a lot, but I do enough low-light that I went for the D700 because of the large pixels and resulting low noise. However, when you're working at base iso with top-line DSLRs like the D300 or D700, the noise isn't much of an issue; that only becomes important at higher ISOs, or with MUCH smaller sensors like in the P&S camera. > A point an shoot can put 5mp on a sensor the size of a > thumb nail, but are you going to get the same quality? I doubt it. Like > most things what you gain in one area, you lose in another. These days, they're putting 10-14MP on a sensor considerably smaller than a thumbnail. And the results show it, especially at high ISOs. > Now the original poster may have no issue with budget. If he met all of > his wants, its thousands of dollars easily if not tens of thousands. For > them dropping 20 thousand in camera gear may just be like me going out to > McDonald's. It is also possible they may have no idea yet what kind of > cost they are talking about. Compromise is always a part of the process. > Even if you have all the money in the world, do you want to carry all the > weight around??? Compromise certainly always enters the arena; on money, or on weight, as you say. I didn't mention the weight issue, I guess I was assuming he'd already know just what a 600/4 was like in that regard. I did mention prices. Both are certainly relevant. -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
