As you well know, the math actually supports digital cameras at this point, not film. And has since pixel count climbed above 8MP.He said 6MP. As I said, I've seen a couple of blow-ups at that level and they did not impress. That would be 2000x3000 'dots' on a print. On a 4x6 it's fine. On a 24x36 it can't be (that's only about 84 'dots' per inch).Can't say that I've ever seen an 8MP blow-up, so can't comment beyond noting that I've read a few times that ISO100 film is the equivalent of 30-40MP (I usually split the difference and quote 35).With some people, they're so convinced that film is better that they won't do real comparisons to objectively judge, they'll always find some way to find film superiorI don't know that that's fair comment. At 6MP I would definitely make that argument. At 12MP I'm much more interested. I know I've said before that I knew digital was inevitable, but just not "ready" yet. At 8+MP it is more than ready for most people, and at 12+MP it may very well be ready for anal-retentives like me. I have been quite impressed with how 1poorlady's new D80 is performing. Very nice (at least on a laptop screen...and, yes, I did do some zooming). This has me even more interested in the D700.And you invited me to pixel-peep, if you'll recall! :-) I didn't say it was a bad image. But you claimed there were no artifacts, yet I saw a few. You also didn't make clear it was a 160x100 equivalent (or I would have cut considerably more slack...I may be a fanatic but I'm not THAT unreasonable!).1poorguy
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra