Alan Brand wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:33:07 +0000, Sarah Eggleston
> <sarah_n@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>>Alan Brand wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 01:42:52 -0400, Anen <amagee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Quoth Alan Brand:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 22:14:44 -0400, Anen <amagee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Quoth Alan Brand:
>>>>>>
>>[snip Canon S2 techie stuff]
>>
>>And on cue, Nikon have just announced the New D3X. I may be in trouble
>>here, Andy wasn't allowed to buy a D2X (cos he already owns a D2H). But
>>this one is outside the ban. Fortunately, according to Google, it's
>>still mostly vapourware.
>
>
> Ah, but 4 to 12 megapixels was a fairly convincing argument, ****rley?
>
> I'm not getting into a size war here, but I'll suggest that for normal
> use 5 to 6 is perfectly adequate for most people's needs and 12 is
> only required for when you need a big professional splash. Beyond the
> equipment, let's not forget the im****tance of technique and ability in
> the whole process.
>
True. But then again, all pixels are not equal. Or megapixels. The 4MP
that you get from a D2H will print to about A3, and in all fairness to
Andy, he does print stuff at that size (current favourite is Peak
Imaging). He's had a couple of photos used in some company promotional
literature (not for cash, but he did get credit), and may be about to
expand his horizons.
I did hear some rumour that there are photolibraries out there with a
minimum spec of "50 MP file, or D2X / D2H raw files", which says
something about Nikon's reputation.
>>-Sazz, photography's such an expensive hobby girl
>
>
> Not as bad as it used to be - setting up and maintaining a decent dark
> room for film processing was a very expensive proposition.
>
Still and all, it seems weird that even as you start to do well, you
still spend more money on the stuff than you make.
And it's excessively geeky! I can't believe I'm even in this
conversation! <obsmiley>
-Sazz
|
