On Jan 13, 6:23 am, Chris Malcolm wrote:
gpaleo wrote:
"Chris Malcolm" wrote
...

(snip)

I've never thought it worth while getting a new computer unless it was
at least four times faster than the old one. Similarly I don't think
it's worth replacing a digital camera with one which hasn't got at
least twice twice the linear resolution of the old one (plus other
technology to match, such as lenses).
Things such as wide dynamic range, wider color gamut, absense of image
noise, high ISO capability, extremely quick and acurate autofocusing,
extremely quick response times, etc...etc... leave you stone cold, eh??

Some of those are irrelevant to the kinds of photography I'm
interested in. The R1 is already so much faster than my own reaction
time for catching acrobatic sports moments that I wouldn't get any
benefit from anything faster. I already have far more dynamic range
than the best photographic printers can handle, and I suspect the same
is true of colour.

In fact if you look at gamut plots, cameras have a much bigger gamut
than srgb or adobe rgb, and in fact than most colour spaces (but "how
big a colour space" can get complicated and I'm neither an expert nor
interested enough). To cut a long story short, if you plan to display
on a screen or print, you already have a bigger gamut than you can
use.

And of the other points, DR, low noise and high ISO are the same
point... And speed of AF may or may not be interesting to someone.

So I mostly agree with Chris here.

As for response, I suspect it's a bit faster than
my old SLR which had to flip up the mirror before firing the shutter,
and sufficiently much faster than me that I probably couldn't notice
any improvement.

I have to say, of all the cameras I've used, the D200 feels by far the
"snappiest", eg much faster than my old minolta xd7. And faster than
all the EVF cameras I have used, in operation and reaction. But it may
well be slower in reacting to a final press of the shutter release
once you're focused somewhere (it should be, no mirror must be flipped
up!). I don't know.

I would appreciate faster and more accurate focus in
dim conditions. But I expect those kinds of things to come along with
the general technology updates of five or so years hence anyway. The
critical thing is the resolution.

Or
do you print meter-sized prints, to be viewed up close??

Why do so many in this newsgroup sneer at preferences they don't
share? Medium format resolution has had a long respectable following
for many decades, and only the short sighted need close scrutiny of
metre sized prints to appreciate its qualities.

True. And anyway, I am short sighted, and don't see why I shouldn't be
able to look at metre-sized prints from 3cm and see details