or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by digitalclips

I post this in jest but you never know ... I have no idea if this is true and Ken does have some far out views .... but: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikcan.htm
LOL. That's true, and L lenses really do make a difference too. I had convinced myself otherwise for many years. Now I own a few I am can really see the difference in my images..
Hear hear!
Yes and no. I would expect Phil will definitely expound on the reasons why they added it, if and when they do, at launch but I doubt you'll see it mentioned in large letters anywhere, simply part of the Tech Spec on the Apple web site for the product in question.
I would agree, if you need a higher pixel count for genuine reasons you also need better hardware all around. Most people need neither. That said, as i have just posted I can bet Apple will up the MP count when they have a technological reason for it, not to impress people.
Unless you want to have a digital zoom with almost no quality loss. Apple will use a higher count when they feel the time is right it it won't be anything to do with marketing.
There is more to the MP count that simply perceived quality. Agreed in consumer products it is irrelevant unless you want digital zoom ability with no loss. Example, thanks to the 20+ MP on a Canon Tn range and others, you can digitally zoom x3 to still have a genuine 1080p video image. With the spread of 4K over the next few years 50 MP and up sensors will be required to allow digital zooming and still hold full resolution in video. It isn't about one up-manship at...
No doubt this article will illicit the usual comments from both sides. None of this would be necessary if people only understood that larger pixel count equates to more flexibility in post rather than quality per se, that assuming all else is of the highest quality. The reason I like my 22 MP sensor on Canon bodies is because I can crop and still hold high quality. On a consumer level camera where cropping is most likely mostly for straightening purposes and therefore...
That would take us over the $1,000 per share pre split if my fuzzy math is correct. Nice
New Posts  All Forums: