F
Frank C.
Guest
ok so you don't understand...pity.OK, I'll spell it out for you: I don't care how YOU define resolution.You sure as heck made a big thing about it before:I don't really care what you think resolution is or how you defineunfortunately 'resolution' is not directly proportional to 'pixel
count' or 'pixel area'... it's a little more involved than that.
Want an example of this? just do the math on Phil's numbers
in his 300D .vs. 350XT comparo here:
it.
This is YOU:
"Like I said, you don't measure resolution on one axis. You measure
it in area. 30% is 30%"
So now when you have no arguments left you just resort to sayinghave a nice day and don't get all in a huff because
you are wrong and left defending the undefendable.
"you're wrong".
Since it doesn't seem like you understand my point, I'll spell that
out too, using the numbers from your link:
Yes 1850 pixels is15% more than 1600 and 1650 is15% more than
1450.
BUT 1850x1650 is30% more pixel area than 1600x1450. Pictures are
2 dimensional, not 1 dimensional.
Get it?
just have fun with your camera and have fun =)
You can still crop 30% more pixels from the 8 MP image than the 6I concur that 8M lets you crop deeper in your pix
but resolution is not increased by as high as you
mentionned.
MP. Not 15%.