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.