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 at www.pillie.me.uk.

On 29/10/2011 13:04, Jake 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!

It's the motorway principle. The more capacity the more traffic

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.


I missed the annual starling visit yesterday. By the time I had one hand
on the camera they had stripped an elderberry tree and were on their way.

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..............

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 06:54:46 -0700 (PDT), Steerpike
wrote:



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..............

I didn't and no, there wasn't any. I used a store merely to get hands
on comparison between cameras and the shop chap knew from the start
that I was over 100 miles from home with time to kill and wouldn't be
buying anything that day or, indeed, ever from that shop. Maybe he was
bored but whatever.

I discounted DSLR on the simple ground of bulk without any help from
the assistant (but having thought long and hard about comments made in
response to my post a while back).

I chose the camera I did simply because I preferred it to the others I
played with in the store, and all credit to the assistant for allowing
me loads of time to get touchy feely with the various cameras. And to
be fair he said something about megapixel count being one of the last
things I should think about.


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 at www.pillie.me.uk.

"Jake" Nospam@invalid wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 06:54:46 -0700 (PDT), Steerpike
wrote:



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..............

I didn't and no, there wasn't any. I used a store merely to get hands
on comparison between cameras and the shop chap knew from the start
that I was over 100 miles from home with time to kill and wouldn't be
buying anything that day or, indeed, ever from that shop. Maybe he was
bored but whatever.

I discounted DSLR on the simple ground of bulk without any help from
the assistant (but having thought long and hard about comments made in
response to my post a while back).

I chose the camera I did simply because I preferred it to the others I
played with in the store, and all credit to the assistant for allowing
me loads of time to get touchy feely with the various cameras. And to
be fair he said something about megapixel count being one of the last
things I should think about.


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 at www.pillie.me.uk.

Jake, don't try and argue with Chris. He is a mental case and will have the
last word. Just let him get on with it. He is an expert in everything except
giving praise to anybody because he knows best.

If you want to wind him up, mention Freemasonry.

Now watch him come back and have a go at me.

He's a sad case.

Mike


--

....................................

Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive.

....................................

On Oct 29, 3:32*pm, Jake Nospam@invalid wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 06:54:46 -0700 (PDT), Steerpike

wrote:

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..............

I didn't and no, there wasn't any. I used a store merely to get hands
on comparison between cameras and the shop chap knew from the start
that I was over 100 miles from home with time to kill and wouldn't be
buying anything that day or, indeed, ever from that shop. Maybe he was
bored but whatever.

I discounted DSLR on the simple ground of bulk without any help from
the assistant (but having thought long and hard about comments made in
response to my post a while back).

I chose the camera I did simply because I preferred it to the others I
played with in the store, and all credit to the assistant for allowing
me loads of time to get touchy feely with the various cameras. And to
be fair he said something about megapixel count being one of the last
things I should think about.

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.

Thats good to hear! An awful lot of people actually believe BS about
pixel count, which is in reality complete nonsense.

"Jake" Nospam@invalid wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:38:08 +0100, stuart noble
wrote:
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.


Canon reduced the megapixel count from the G10 to 10mpxl on the G11 to
improve the noise when using high ISO ratings.

You are right when you say there is more to life than megapixels.

Bill

On 29/10/2011 13:04, Jake 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!

In the early 80's you would be able to read in magazines that 640k of
ram in a computer was enough for any conceivable application too.

BTW The magazine was wrong at the time. Depending on the ASA rating of
the film a 35mm slide would hold between 24Mpixels and 12Mpixels of data
and some slower B&W films were better still. Professional photographers
also tend to use 6x7cm as a minimum and half plate negatives for stuff
which would be enlarged to poster sizes.

Kodaks professional PCD film scanning base*16 gave 6Mpixels (amateur)
and base*64 (pro) 12Mpixels - this captures most of the detail on most
film stocks (but not for ultra fine grain slow films used with the best
lenses).

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

The digicam Mpixel race has become somewhat silly these days as
comparatively few zoom lenses are good enough to maintain detail
sufficient to match the latest generation of sensors.

It is an easy number for marketeers to sell hence the race, but once you
go beyond about 8Mpixels with run of the mill lenses the law of
diminishing returns sets in. It is a feature rather than a benefit.

Same with "sharpness" - a lot of P&S camera by default oversharpen their
images. This is because perceived sharpness in benchmarks and reviews
sells more cameras. You see haloes round edges as a result.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Oct 30, 11:34*am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 29/10/2011 13:04, Jake 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!

In the early 80's you would be able to read in magazines that 640k of
ram in a computer was enough for any conceivable application too.

BTW The magazine was wrong at the time. Depending on the ASA rating of
the film a 35mm slide would hold between 24Mpixels and 12Mpixels of data
and some slower B&W films were better still. Professional photographers
also tend to use 6x7cm as a minimum and half plate negatives for stuff
which would be enlarged to poster sizes.

Kodaks professional PCD film scanning base*16 gave 6Mpixels (amateur)
and base*64 (pro) 12Mpixels - this captures most of the detail on most
film stocks (but not for ultra fine grain slow films used with the best
lenses).



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

The digicam Mpixel race has become somewhat silly these days as
comparatively few zoom lenses are good enough to maintain detail
sufficient to match the latest generation of sensors.

It is an easy number for marketeers to sell hence the race, but once you
go beyond about 8Mpixels with run of the mill lenses the law of
diminishing returns sets in. It is a feature rather than a benefit.

Same with "sharpness" - a lot of P&S camera by default oversharpen their
images. This is because perceived sharpness in benchmarks and reviews
sells more cameras. You see haloes round edges as a result.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Indeed............PAS camera's have plenty of silly "features" related
far more closely to marketing, than anything linked to providing good
pictures! This is something thats worth looking at quite closely by
anyone even vaguely interested in taking anything other than
snapshots.

On Oct 30, 11:38*am, Martin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 11:34:38 +0000, Martin Brown





wrote:
On 29/10/2011 13:04, Jake 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!

In the 1960s you were lucky if you had 32K bytes of RAM and 120 Kbytes
of disk capacity
--

Martin- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In the 60's if you had a home computer you must have been time
traveling

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 Dave Hill wrote:

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!

In the 1960s you were lucky if you had 32K bytes of RAM and 120 Kbytes
of disk capacity

In the 60's if you had a home computer you must have been time
traveling

Quite. I didn't see a desktop computer until 1979 when the school where
I was teaching bought the Commodore Pet. A couple of years later it was
a toss up as to whether I should get a Commodore Pet or a TRS-80. The
TRS-80 won because it was cheaper.

And it was supposed to be Bill Gates who said back in the 80s that he
didn't think anyone would need more than 64k of RAM. But maybe that's an
urban legend. I've got Bill Gates' book - I'll have to look it up,
though I'm not sure if all of it is to be believed. He claims to have
written the BASIC interpreter for all the desktop computers at that
time.

David

--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK
http://rance.org.uk

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 Martin wrote:

In the 60's if you had a home computer you must have been time
traveling

Quite.

Except I never claimed to have had a home computer in the 1960s.

And it was supposed to be Bill Gates who said back in the 80s that he
didn't think anyone would need more than 64k of RAM. But maybe that's an
urban legend. I've got Bill Gates' book - I'll have to look it up,
though I'm not sure if all of it is to be believed. He claims to have
written the BASIC interpreter for all the desktop computers at that
time.

Bully for him. I hope you were impressed.

Writing BASIC interpreters is trivial.

I never claimed it wasn't trivial. ;-)

David

--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK
http://rance.org.uk

Whilst on cameras, has anyone tried having a "photo book" printed from
digital images?

I have just had one done by Lidl's photo service and the results are very
good, and at what I consider a fair price.

Mike