You believe because you've dropped the big bucks and WANT to believe.
But most of it is hype and the EIA has done a superb job of convincing
consumers how badly they need the new whistles and bells. There is
very little difference between the propaganda used today by the drug
companies to sell
their nonsense snake oil ("restless legs syndrome," etc) and that which the
has come
from manufacturers of modern day radios.

Save your money, pick up a cheap older rig and you'll enjoy it as much as
(if not more than)
the rigs filled with rarely used features and performance specifications
that are
patently unnecessary.

And while I am at it, my quote was that "MOST" can discern the difference
in 100 cycles. I didn't say ALL. This group seems include many Doberman
pinschers
with keen hearing.

What a bunch of nitpicky old ladies
are on here.

On 3/8/10 08:20 , Clive wrote:
You believe because you've dropped the big bucks and WANT to believe.
But most of it is hype and the EIA has done a superb job of convincing
consumers how badly they need the new whistles and bells. There is
very little difference between the propaganda used today by the drug
companies to sell
their nonsense snake oil ("restless legs syndrome," etc) and that which
the has come
from manufacturers of modern day radios.

Save your money, pick up a cheap older rig and you'll enjoy it as much
as (if not more than)
the rigs filled with rarely used features and performance specifications
that are
patently unnecessary.

And while I am at it, my quote was that "MOST" can discern the difference
in 100 cycles. I didn't say ALL. This group seems include many Doberman
pinschers
with keen hearing.

What a bunch of nitpicky old ladies
are on here.



Yes. We've noticed that.

And why shouldn't people be picky about their Radios? Ticky Butt!
cuhulin

In article ,
says...
On 3/8/10 08:20 , Clive wrote:
You believe because you've dropped the big bucks and WANT to believe.
But most of it is hype and the EIA has done a superb job of convincing
consumers how badly they need the new whistles and bells. There is
very little difference between the propaganda used today by the drug
companies to sell
their nonsense snake oil ("restless legs syndrome," etc) and that which
the has come
from manufacturers of modern day radios.

Save your money, pick up a cheap older rig and you'll enjoy it as much
as (if not more than)
the rigs filled with rarely used features and performance specifications
that are
patently unnecessary.

And while I am at it, my quote was that "MOST" can discern the difference
in 100 cycles. I didn't say ALL. This group seems include many Doberman
pinschers
with keen hearing.

What a bunch of nitpicky old ladies
are on here.



Yes. We've noticed that.




Like any other hobby, once you get to a certain point, it's all pretty
much nitpicking. A friend of mine is into radio control helicopters, and
he puts down the cheaper plastic and partially CNC aluminum ones that do
99% of what his all CNC headed ones do, just not as precisely. I'm kind
of thinking about getting one, but he's pushing me towards the higher
end ones, and I'm thinking it's gonna crash anyway, so why not start out
cheap?

Then there's a friend who is into cameras, and buys another insanely
expensive one about every year and a half or so. Pics don't look much
different than when he had his 4 megapixel camera. Now he has an 18
megapixel (I think that's how many it's got)camera that costs what a
used car does.
--

BDK..
Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.

On Mar 8, 12:28*pm, BDK wrote:
In article ,
says...





On 3/8/10 08:20 , Clive wrote:
You believe because you've dropped the big bucks and WANT to believe.
But most of it is hype and the EIA has done a superb job of convincing
consumers how badly they need the new whistles and bells. There is
very little difference between the propaganda used today by the drug
companies to sell
their nonsense snake oil ("restless legs syndrome," etc) and that which
the has come
from manufacturers of modern day radios.

Save your money, pick up a cheap older rig and you'll enjoy it as much
as (if not more than)
the rigs filled with rarely used features and performance specifications
that are
patently unnecessary.

And while I am at it, my quote was that "MOST" can discern the difference
in 100 cycles. I didn't say ALL. This group seems include many Doberman
pinschers
with keen hearing.

What a bunch of nitpicky old ladies
are on here.

* *Yes. We've noticed that.

Like any other hobby, once you get to a certain point, it's all pretty
much nitpicking. A friend of mine is into radio control helicopters, and
he puts down the cheaper plastic and partially CNC aluminum ones that do
99% of what his all CNC headed ones do, just not as precisely. I'm kind
of thinking about getting one, but he's pushing me towards the higher
end ones, and I'm thinking it's gonna crash anyway, so why not start out
cheap?

Then there's a friend who is into cameras, and buys another insanely
expensive one about every year and a half or so. Pics don't look much
different than when he had his 4 megapixel camera. Now he has an 18
megapixel (I think that's how many it's got)camera that costs what a
used car does.
--

BDK..
Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In particular, camera megapixel size is REALLY overblown. Unless
you're going to shoot for billboards to be examined at a distance of
two feet, you don't need much over 6Mp. I have a 10.1Mp - because
that's what they had at the time - and it is way more than adequate.
I often find myself reducing it for manageability.

As Peter has suggested and I concur, much better to put some $$$ into
decent glass. That'll get you a lot more sharpness and resolution
than doubling your pixel count.

Bruce

On 3/8/10 14:54 , bpnjensen wrote:
On Mar 8, 12:28 pm, wrote:
In ,
says...





On 3/8/10 08:20 , Clive wrote:
You believe because you've dropped the big bucks and WANT to believe.
But most of it is hype and the EIA has done a superb job of convincing
consumers how badly they need the new whistles and bells. There is
very little difference between the propaganda used today by the drug
companies to sell
their nonsense snake oil ("restless legs syndrome," etc) and that which
the has come
from manufacturers of modern day radios.

Save your money, pick up a cheap older rig and you'll enjoy it as much
as (if not more than)
the rigs filled with rarely used features and performance specifications
that are
patently unnecessary.

And while I am at it, my quote was that "MOST" can discern the difference
in 100 cycles. I didn't say ALL. This group seems include many Doberman
pinschers
with keen hearing.

What a bunch of nitpicky old ladies
are on here.

Yes. We've noticed that.

Like any other hobby, once you get to a certain point, it's all pretty
much nitpicking. A friend of mine is into radio control helicopters, and
he puts down the cheaper plastic and partially CNC aluminum ones that do
99% of what his all CNC headed ones do, just not as precisely. I'm kind
of thinking about getting one, but he's pushing me towards the higher
end ones, and I'm thinking it's gonna crash anyway, so why not start out
cheap?

Then there's a friend who is into cameras, and buys another insanely
expensive one about every year and a half or so. Pics don't look much
different than when he had his 4 megapixel camera. Now he has an 18
megapixel (I think that's how many it's got)camera that costs what a
used car does.
--

BDK..
Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In particular, camera megapixel size is REALLY overblown. Unless
you're going to shoot for billboards to be examined at a distance of
two feet, you don't need much over 6Mp. I have a 10.1Mp - because
that's what they had at the time - and it is way more than adequate.
I often find myself reducing it for manageability.

Having a higher pixel count allows for more editing choices, as
well. Especially when shooting in the field when things are moving
VERY quickly, you can crop out more unnecessary material with less
loss of resolution. There are limits, of course. But as a rule, more
pixels means more options.



As Peter has suggested and I concur, much better to put some $$$ into
decent glass. That'll get you a lot more sharpness and resolution
than doubling your pixel count.

When I was only shooting a D70, I put premium glass out front and
it made a dramatic difference in the finished image. When I put the
same glass out front of the D300, with twice the pixel count, I got
a little better color. Somewhat better resolution on the monitor.
But nothing compared to the improvement of changing glass.

To bring this back to topic, it's not very much different than
putting better antenna on the front end of your radio.

On Mar 8, 1:10*pm, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:
On 3/8/10 14:54 , bpnjensen wrote:





On Mar 8, 12:28 pm, *wrote:
In ,
says...

On 3/8/10 08:20 , Clive wrote:
You believe because you've dropped the big bucks and WANT to believe..
But most of it is hype and the EIA has done a superb job of convincing
consumers how badly they need the new whistles and bells. There is
very little difference between the propaganda used today by the drug
companies to sell
their nonsense snake oil ("restless legs syndrome," etc) and that which
the has come
from manufacturers of modern day radios.

Save your money, pick up a cheap older rig and you'll enjoy it as much
as (if not more than)
the rigs filled with rarely used features and performance specifications
that are
patently unnecessary.

And while I am at it, my quote was that "MOST" can discern the difference
in 100 cycles. I didn't say ALL. This group seems include many Doberman
pinschers
with keen hearing.

What a bunch of nitpicky old ladies
are on here.

* * Yes. We've noticed that.

Like any other hobby, once you get to a certain point, it's all pretty
much nitpicking. A friend of mine is into radio control helicopters, and
he puts down the cheaper plastic and partially CNC aluminum ones that do
99% of what his all CNC headed ones do, just not as precisely. I'm kind
of thinking about getting one, but he's pushing me towards the higher
end ones, and I'm thinking it's gonna crash anyway, so why not start out
cheap?

Then there's a friend who is into cameras, and buys another insanely
expensive one about every year and a half or so. Pics don't look much
different than when he had his 4 megapixel camera. Now he has an 18
megapixel (I think that's how many it's got)camera that costs what a
used car does.
--

BDK..
Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In particular, camera megapixel size is REALLY overblown. *Unless
you're going to shoot for billboards to be examined at a distance of
two feet, you don't need much over 6Mp. *I have a 10.1Mp - because
that's what they had at the time - and it is way more than adequate.
I often find myself reducing it for manageability.

* *Having a higher pixel count allows for more editing choices, as
well. Especially when shooting in the field when things are moving
VERY quickly, you can crop out more unnecessary material with less
loss of resolution. There are limits, of course. But as a rule, more
pixels means more options.



As Peter has suggested and I concur, much better to put some $$$ into
decent glass. *That'll get you a lot more sharpness and resolution
than doubling your pixel count.

* *When I was only shooting a D70, I put premium glass out front and
it made a dramatic difference in the finished image. When I put the
same glass out front of the D300, with twice the pixel count, I got
a little better color. Somewhat better resolution on the monitor.
But nothing compared to the improvement of changing glass.

* *To bring this back to topic, it's not very much different than
putting better antenna on the front end of your radio.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exactly, and a great analogy. Whatever collects and delivers the
photons most effectively is what gets the results.

bpnjensen wrote:
On Mar 8, 1:10 pm, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:
On 3/8/10 14:54 , bpnjensen wrote:





On Mar 8, 12:28 pm, wrote:
In ,
says...
On 3/8/10 08:20 , Clive wrote:
You believe because you've dropped the big bucks and WANT to believe.
But most of it is hype and the EIA has done a superb job of convincing
consumers how badly they need the new whistles and bells. There is
very little difference between the propaganda used today by the drug
companies to sell
their nonsense snake oil ("restless legs syndrome," etc) and that which
the has come
from manufacturers of modern day radios.
Save your money, pick up a cheap older rig and you'll enjoy it as much
as (if not more than)
the rigs filled with rarely used features and performance specifications
that are
patently unnecessary.
And while I am at it, my quote was that "MOST" can discern the difference
in 100 cycles. I didn't say ALL. This group seems include many Doberman
pinschers
with keen hearing.
What a bunch of nitpicky old ladies
are on here.
Yes. We've noticed that.
Like any other hobby, once you get to a certain point, it's all pretty
much nitpicking. A friend of mine is into radio control helicopters, and
he puts down the cheaper plastic and partially CNC aluminum ones that do
99% of what his all CNC headed ones do, just not as precisely. I'm kind
of thinking about getting one, but he's pushing me towards the higher
end ones, and I'm thinking it's gonna crash anyway, so why not start out
cheap?
Then there's a friend who is into cameras, and buys another insanely
expensive one about every year and a half or so. Pics don't look much
different than when he had his 4 megapixel camera. Now he has an 18
megapixel (I think that's how many it's got)camera that costs what a
used car does.
--
BDK..
Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
In particular, camera megapixel size is REALLY overblown. Unless
you're going to shoot for billboards to be examined at a distance of
two feet, you don't need much over 6Mp. I have a 10.1Mp - because
that's what they had at the time - and it is way more than adequate.
I often find myself reducing it for manageability.
Having a higher pixel count allows for more editing choices, as
well. Especially when shooting in the field when things are moving
VERY quickly, you can crop out more unnecessary material with less
loss of resolution. There are limits, of course. But as a rule, more
pixels means more options.



As Peter has suggested and I concur, much better to put some $$$ into
decent glass. That'll get you a lot more sharpness and resolution
than doubling your pixel count.
When I was only shooting a D70, I put premium glass out front and
it made a dramatic difference in the finished image. When I put the
same glass out front of the D300, with twice the pixel count, I got
a little better color. Somewhat better resolution on the monitor.
But nothing compared to the improvement of changing glass.

To bring this back to topic, it's not very much different than
putting better antenna on the front end of your radio.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exactly, and a great analogy. Whatever collects and delivers the
photons most effectively is what gets the results.

This is why I'm strongly considering changing over from Nikon DSLRs to
the Micro 4/3 format.

I can get an adapter that'll let me use all my Alpa lenses including
fast 50, 100 and 150mm apochromats on the micro 4/3 camera.

On Mar 8, 2:02*pm, Bob Dobbs wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

* When I was only shooting a D70, I put premium glass out front and
it made a dramatic difference in the finished image. When I put the
same glass out front of the D300, with twice the pixel count, I got
a little better color. Somewhat better resolution on the monitor.
But nothing compared to the improvement of changing glass.

* To bring this back to topic, it's not very much different than
putting better antenna on the front end of your radio.

If that extra glass means you won't be toting it as often,
such that some unexpected opportunities are missed,
isn't that in a way like having too much antenna,
such that those rare catches get buried in the overload?

--

Operator Bob
Echo Charlie 42

Some of us travel heavy. I wind up schlepping my tripod and 20 lbs.
of camera into the mountains more often than I care to admit (or
contemplate). OTOH, bigger isn't always better when it comes to glass
- although it can help.

Bruce

On 3/8/10 16:24 , bpnjensen wrote:
On Mar 8, 2:02 pm, Bob wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

When I was only shooting a D70, I put premium glass out front and
it made a dramatic difference in the finished image. When I put the
same glass out front of the D300, with twice the pixel count, I got
a little better color. Somewhat better resolution on the monitor.
But nothing compared to the improvement of changing glass.

To bring this back to topic, it's not very much different than
putting better antenna on the front end of your radio.

If that extra glass means you won't be toting it as often,
such that some unexpected opportunities are missed,
isn't that in a way like having too much antenna,
such that those rare catches get buried in the overload?


You can always find obstacles, if you look hard enough.

If you know what you're doing, whether capturing photons in the
environs, or sucking electrons out of the ether, you don't miss
anything. No matter what you're carrying.

I don't even carry a camera bag.


--

Operator Bob
Echo Charlie 42

Some of us travel heavy. I wind up schlepping my tripod and 20 lbs.
of camera into the mountains more often than I care to admit (or
contemplate). OTOH, bigger isn't always better when it comes to glass
- although it can help.


By way of comparison, I have to travel light. There simply isn't
room in the aircraft for what I can't hold in my hands. So, a
premium lens is essential. And the right selection of premium glass
is required. For most shooting, two bodies, two lenses. 24-70mm f2.8
on D700, and 70-200mm f2.8 on D300. Covers any territory I may
encounter.