Sony 8 Mega Pixel camera

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
. ..
[]
All we can do for the "which camera should I buy" questions is point
them to various data and let them look for themselves. When they have
all the facts, opinions, and data, they will make up their minds.

Gary Eickmeier

"We" should also encourage people to actually try the cameras in their own
hands where possible, as usability may be the most important factor, if
other things are about equal.

Cheers,
David

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
. ..
[]
All we can do for the "which camera should I buy" questions is point
them to various data and let them look for themselves. When they have
all the facts, opinions, and data, they will make up their minds.

Gary Eickmeier

"We" should also encourage people to actually try the cameras in their own
hands where possible, as usability may be the most important factor, if
other things are about equal.

Cheers,
David

"Sabineellen" wrote in message
...
There are signs this year that "digital revolution" is about to hit a
plateau,
eithr in terms of technological progress or market conditions.
Photographic
film, which is an alogether different situation from audiotape or
videocassete,
may be safer than thought a year or two ago.

And what are some of those signs? I'm really interested. And what is safe?
Safe from extinction? Does safe mean bottoming out (and staying there)
with, say, 1% of the market reflected in whatever measurement would reflect
the state of the market? Let's say we measure "total" shots taken (which
would, I'll admit, not be the way to measure, but I can't think of anything
else at the moment). How _little_ film usage would qualify film for being a
medium that is "alive and well." Horse and buggy's are "safe" in the sense
that they aren't going to disappear, but they're certainly not a major
factor in the transportation market. Likewise, would you say that film is
"safe" when it's sales to consumers fall to say, 1% of what they'll be this
year. That might happen. And when it does, I'd say that film is safe in
terms of not being extinct, but that it's hardly safe in terms of its use by
the photographic community--either popular consumer or professional.

David J Taylor wrote:

"We" should also encourage people to actually try the cameras in their own
hands where possible, as usability may be the most important factor, if
other things are about equal.

Good point. I know I fell in love with the E10 when I just picked it up
and looked through that optical viewfinder. I wanted to like the Sony
717 or the Minolta A1, but it just wasn't the same experience.

I really do hope the video viewfinders eventually become fine enough and
big enough to surpass the optical ones for usefulness. I just love the
idea of a live histogram, but...

Gary Eickmeier

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
.. .
[]
I really do hope the video viewfinders eventually become fine enough and
big enough to surpass the optical ones for usefulness. I just love the
idea of a live histogram, but...

Gary Eickmeier

Agreed. I recently tried a Minolta A2 and the viewfinder was excellent -
VGA resolution (not 1MP like they advertise on the box...). So if we
could get a 1024 x 768 EVF that would be great! May be the next
evolution, as number of pixels now seems adequate.

Cheers,
David

Sounds like the SONY F-828 camera ... my latest investment!

I am using 5M pixel definition because I want to have that extra detailed
photo, which can then be edited while retaining its picture quality.
However, although 8M would offer much more fine quality, not only would the
photo take up much more CF storage space ... but the image would notably
take longer for the camera to process and store.

Higher pixel resolution is mainly for images that you intend to print as
enlargements ... say posters


Jon


"Leo Reyes" wrote in message
link.net...
I just want some insight on any camera that claims 8 mega pixels, my
friend
has a Sony (do not know model) that has 8 mega pixels. I have a Canon
with
3.2 mega pixels and it is sharp on 8X10's. But what in tarnations could a
8
mega pixel yield, microscopic details on peoples faces, is there really a
huge difference.

--

8 million ... ha! ha! ha!

When I was window shopping, I was shown a KODAK camera that had 13 MILLION
pixal definition ... and the camera body was priced at only a mere £5000

Jon


"Leo Reyes" wrote in message
link.net...
Thanks to all that replied.... It just boogles the mind to think of 8
megapixels....surely by now 35 mm film is dead.


"Leo Reyes" wrote in message
link.net...
I just want some insight on any camera that claims 8 mega pixels, my
friend
has a Sony (do not know model) that has 8 mega pixels. I have a Canon
with
3.2 mega pixels and it is sharp on 8X10's. But what in tarnations could
a
8
mega pixel yield, microscopic details on peoples faces, is there really
a
huge difference.

--

"chesham" wrote in message =
...
Sounds like the SONY F-828 camera ... my latest investment!

I am using 5M pixel definition because I want to have that extra =
detailed
photo, which can then be edited while retaining its picture quality.
However, although 8M would offer much more fine quality, not only would =
the
photo take up much more CF storage space ... but the image would notably
take longer for the camera to process and store.

Higher pixel resolution is mainly for images that you intend to print as
enlargements ... say posters


Jon
-------------------
-------------------
-------------------
Processing time for either 5 or 8 is minimal if your card is fast. It's
important to mention this.
An image shot in 8, is the equivelant of around 320 ppi for an 8X10.
Hardly overkill, and considering it's going to be much less as the =
overall
print size increases, 8 in some circles is barely sufficient.
Sometimes a image shot in landscape orientation doesn't deserve it and
if it's cropped for portrait you'll be glad it was taken as an 8 meg.
mark_

"chesham" wrote in message =
...
Sounds like the SONY F-828 camera ... my latest investment!

I am using 5M pixel definition because I want to have that extra =
detailed
photo, which can then be edited while retaining its picture quality.
However, although 8M would offer much more fine quality, not only would =
the
photo take up much more CF storage space ... but the image would notably
take longer for the camera to process and store.

Higher pixel resolution is mainly for images that you intend to print as
enlargements ... say posters


Jon
-------------------
-------------------
-------------------
Processing time for either 5 or 8 is minimal if your card is fast. It's
important to mention this.
An image shot in 8, is the equivelant of around 320 ppi for an 8X10.
Hardly overkill, and considering it's going to be much less as the =
overall
print size increases, 8 in some circles is barely sufficient.
Sometimes a image shot in landscape orientation doesn't deserve it and
if it's cropped for portrait you'll be glad it was taken as an 8 meg.
mark_

Exactly the higher the pixel count the more you can crop the image and still
end up with a good quality print . for monitor display low pixel counts are
fine [72 dpi etc] ...mjh

--
http://members.tripod.com/mikehide2
"chesham" wrote in message
...
Sounds like the SONY F-828 camera ... my latest investment!

I am using 5M pixel definition because I want to have that extra detailed
photo, which can then be edited while retaining its picture quality.
However, although 8M would offer much more fine quality, not only would
the
photo take up much more CF storage space ... but the image would notably
take longer for the camera to process and store.

Higher pixel resolution is mainly for images that you intend to print as
enlargements ... say posters


Jon


"Leo Reyes" wrote in message
link.net...
I just want some insight on any camera that claims 8 mega pixels, my
friend
has a Sony (do not know model) that has 8 mega pixels. I have a Canon
with
3.2 mega pixels and it is sharp on 8X10's. But what in tarnations could
a
8
mega pixel yield, microscopic details on peoples faces, is there really
a
huge difference.

--