On Oct 29, 1:04*pm, Jake Nospam@invalid wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:38:08 +0100, stuart noble

wrote:

I'm still on 3.2 megapixels for the always with camera. Never really
felt the need, or seen it as a civic duty, to upgrade :-)

I remember reading not that many years ago that 5 megapixels was about
the same definition as "professional" "film" cameras (remember those?)
and there was no need to go any higher.

OTOH, I have a magazine somewhere from the latter half of the 80s
which maintained that 64K of memory and 120 megabytes of hard disk
capacity would be enough to see me through my lifetime of computing
needs!

I've taken (what I think are) better shots with the 3.5 megapixel
camera in my mobile phone than with a 10 megapixel camera that the G12
has now replaced. I think there's a lot more to life than megapixels.

Cheers, Jake
================================================== ===========
URGling from the less wet end of Swansea Bay where it's about
the same moisture-wise as the more wet end.

The cat's web site is atwww.pillie.me.uk.

The number of pixels is to a large extent a good sales gimmick, and in
general you would find that a 5 meg DSLR which is optically superior
to an 8 meg PAS, will produce much better pictures!

Seems strange that no one much seems to have grasped this, and also
seem unaware of the size that pics would be if printed at full
resolution.

But then again if you bought from one of the chains, you will have
certainly have had to listen to bullshit about a PAS with more pixels,
being superior to a DSLR with less..............