Let the pixel wars reign. Canon to release 80mp unit in 2020.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Some wildlife shooters may believe that low megapixel cameras are more
forgiving of bad shots or conditions. Where a 45mp camera's resolution
is
compromised easily by any movement, a 16-20mp image isn't.

yes it is.

But it isn't so noticeable.

it's just as noticeable.

Not according to the mathematics.

eyeballs say otherwise.

On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 21:49:36 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Some wildlife shooters may believe that low megapixel cameras are more
forgiving of bad shots or conditions. Where a 45mp camera's resolution
is
compromised easily by any movement, a 16-20mp image isn't.

yes it is.

But it isn't so noticeable.

it's just as noticeable.

Not according to the mathematics.

eyeballs say otherwise.

It's funny you should say that. You completely reject ears say
otherwise, even where you are comparing two different technologies.

Don't bother replying, or if you do I will ignore it. All I am doing
is pointing out your total inconsistency.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Some wildlife shooters may believe that low megapixel cameras are
more
forgiving of bad shots or conditions. Where a 45mp camera's
resolution
is
compromised easily by any movement, a 16-20mp image isn't.

yes it is.

But it isn't so noticeable.

it's just as noticeable.

Not according to the mathematics.

eyeballs say otherwise.

It's funny you should say that. You completely reject ears say
otherwise, even where you are comparing two different technologies.

nope. what i reject is when people try to claim there's an audible
difference when there mathematically cannot be, more so when they use
terms like 'airy highs' or similar nonsense.

Don't bother replying, or if you do I will ignore it. All I am doing
is pointing out your total inconsistency.

nope. what you're doing is moving the goalposts.

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 01:09:24 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Some wildlife shooters may believe that low megapixel cameras are
more
forgiving of bad shots or conditions. Where a 45mp camera's
resolution
is
compromised easily by any movement, a 16-20mp image isn't.

yes it is.

But it isn't so noticeable.

it's just as noticeable.

Not according to the mathematics.

eyeballs say otherwise.

It's funny you should say that. You completely reject ears say
otherwise, even where you are comparing two different technologies.

nope. what i reject is when people try to claim there's an audible
difference when there mathematically cannot be, more so when they use
terms like 'airy highs' or similar nonsense.

Don't bother replying, or if you do I will ignore it. All I am doing
is pointing out your total inconsistency.

nope. what you're doing is moving the goalposts.

But they are your goal posts, right where you planted them.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Some wildlife shooters may believe that low megapixel cameras are
more
forgiving of bad shots or conditions. Where a 45mp camera's
resolution
is
compromised easily by any movement, a 16-20mp image isn't.

yes it is.

But it isn't so noticeable.

it's just as noticeable.

Not according to the mathematics.

eyeballs say otherwise.

It's funny you should say that. You completely reject ears say
otherwise, even where you are comparing two different technologies.

nope. what i reject is when people try to claim there's an audible
difference when there mathematically cannot be, more so when they use
terms like 'airy highs' or similar nonsense.

Don't bother replying, or if you do I will ignore it. All I am doing
is pointing out your total inconsistency.

nope. what you're doing is moving the goalposts.

But they are your goal posts, right where you planted them.

nope.

In article , Incubus
wrote:

The monied masses if anything are being brainwashed into thinking that they
need a D850 because more megapixels means better image quality. I had one
chap
telling me how even if he prints 8x6 photos, he can tell the difference
between
the D750 and the D850.

confirmation bias

I asked him where the extra megapixels are going since
at 300dpi an 8x6 image is 7.2Mp. So far, he hasn't got back to me.

4.3 mp, and its ppi, not dpi.

an 8x10 @300ppi is 7.2 mp.

On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 16:33:20 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Tuesday, 17 September 2019 05:40:22 UTC-4, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-16, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, 12 September 2019 20:23:02 UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
On Sep 12, 2019, Incubus wrote
(in article ):

On 2019-09-12, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 10:42:19 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
wrote:

On 2019-09-11, wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 04:41:18 UTC-4, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-10, wrote:
All I want, is 40mp for m4/3rds. Or, failing that, a high resolution
mode that under the right circumstances allows for hand-held shooting.

https://petapixel.com/2019/09/10/can...-eos-r-camera-
in-early-2020-report/

I'd prefer more dynamic range and ISO capability over megapixels I don't
need.
How many lenses will resolve detail at that level?

It'll be part of their pro line and most pros don't care about
cutting-edge DR or ultra-high ISO.
I don't know that that's true. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that most
pros
care about huge numbers of megapixels outside of certain fields.

True. Take a look at Canon and Nikon's sports/PJ cams. No ultra
high-res there. But they do have a need for speed.

Indeed. I think MP are better for wildlife photography and product photography
where there is much more scope for cropping. If I were a wildlife
photographer, something fast and hi-res like the D850 would be my choice.

While the D850 is undeniably one of the finest DSLR cameras available an
APS-C camera, the D500 has proven to be far more effective as a wildlife
camera than the D850. While I moved from Nikon to Fujifilm in 2015 if I had
to choose a camera for pure wildlife photography it would be the D500, not
the D850.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

The monied masses have been brainwashed to believe they need FF so they'll buy a rinky-dink plasticky D750 over the D500 which Nikon is expected to kill shortly.

The D500 actually costs more than the D750 and the D750 is a better all-round
camera (certainly for the money). There is nothing wrong with the build
quality of the D750.

If Nikon discontinues the D500 it will be because there is no market for a
flagship DX camera any more. It seems a fairly popular camera, though, so I'd
be surprised if it goes.

The monied masses if anything are being brainwashed into thinking that they
need a D850 because more megapixels means better image quality. I had one chap
telling me how even if he prints 8x6 photos, he can tell the difference between
the D750 and the D850. I asked him where the extra megapixels are going since
at 300dpi an 8x6 image is 7.2Mp. So far, he hasn't got back to me.

I've seen 16 versus 24mp at 16x20, not a great difference. The guy is nuts.

Some of my best large prints are from 7MP Nikon D70. Typically 16" x
20"

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The monied masses if anything are being brainwashed into thinking that they
need a D850 because more megapixels means better image quality. I had one
chap
telling me how even if he prints 8x6 photos, he can tell the difference
between
the D750 and the D850. I asked him where the extra megapixels are going
since
at 300dpi an 8x6 image is 7.2Mp. So far, he hasn't got back to me.

I've seen 16 versus 24mp at 16x20, not a great difference. The guy is nuts.

Some of my best large prints are from 7MP Nikon D70. Typically 16" x
20"

the d70 is 6mp (3008x2000), not 7mp.

a 16x20" print from it would be 125 ppi, which is quite low.

Eric Stevens:
Some of my best large prints are from 7MP Nikon D70. Typically 16" x20"

I use Canon DSLRs and mirrorless these days, but I can get great prints
from my 6MP Nikon D100. 16 x 20 is the largest I've done, 11x14 more
typical.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 18/09/2019 00:33, RichA wrote:
[]
I've seen 16 versus 24mp at 16x20, not a great difference. The guy is nuts.

Perhaps there are other differences to the image quality between the
D750 and the D850, not just resolution. Different lens, different
focus, dynamic range, default sharpness etc. settings? These may not
have been well-controlled tests with identical lenses.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu