Not really 920,000 pixels.. :(

Started Sep 3, 2007 | Discussions thread
J Mankila
J Mankila Veteran Member • Posts: 4,234
Canon does the same... :)

Bryan Campbell wrote:

Hey, lets use a bigger number to show how much better we are than
Canon! If its misleading the consumer, who cares! Oh, oh! Lets also
add iso 25600 to our D3 camera even though its unusable. It will look
totally awesome in the specs. Dude high five, lets go surfin'!

Actually, they don't state it's ISO 25'600! They call it Hi 2.0. You see, ISO 6400 is the highest they rate.

Dude, you should do some research...

And please wait for the official samples before you go on about how useless Hi 2.0 is, really. Some of the early sample images show that the (remember, pre-production) cameras (with firmwares starting with 0. ) are clearly misajdusted - even though the lighting and composition stays the same, the Hi 2.0 sample images come out way too light. When they're pulled down by that stop or more in post, they seem fine... Go on, try it.

Pure sarcasm... I hate when camera companies (or any company) mislead
the consumer like this, and yes Canon has been guilty of it in the

Not only in the past. Now, if they did what you wish Nikon did with their announced pixel numbers, Canon would have to say they have 3" 78'000 pixel LCDs.

Now, please go and call them liars if you want...

-- hide signature --

Janne Mankila, Finland

My thoughts on The Bourne Ultimatum and
ending credits by the allmighty Moby at:

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow