I've made larger prints from 6 MP D100 images and they look good, but lack the detail and crispness of higher MP images.
Perhaps so, ;-) but I've seen people doing it with landscape paintings. It is common gallery behavior.Actually I did see people doing that at the Erwin Olaf exhibition...Probable had to do more with the subjects...
I would say a 36MP body is more sorely wanted than needed, but in a market situation where people wish for the pinnacle technology and are willing to pay for it, it is all the same from the manufacturer's perspective.
)--My God what a train wreck thread. I wish I could find it, there was a fantastic online comparison test I saw a month ago that really captured the differences between digital and film resolutions, including the D3x, several MF digital cameras and film to 8X10. The D3x was destroyed by....Yippee! I found it... Why do we need more MPs??? To get back to where we were with film!
http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stealthman_1/
Then go buy your cell phone cam and photo frame and leave the higher quality capture and output to those of us who need it. It gets tiring listening to the lowest common denominator like yourself thinking they can dictate what the rest of us needs.
To brag a bit
My images where used in 2005 for a bus commercial in Hungary (Twinings), they were made with D100 and D70 (6MP) All has to do with target output in relation to the type of media used for, my first question was in that time, is that really not too small for your usage "no absolutely not was the answer) The high detail was gone due to size but they came out great in relation to the size/type of usage.Of course. But there is a difference between poking and viewing. The way media is printed and prepared has a lot do with it also people forget that. You really need huge full sized, excellent media, high quality professional printing to make that 36MP detail stand out, A0 or larger. But stil you can make a huge print excellent A3/A2 with about a 1/4 crop of that 36MP..so that is the power for most probable. Just all those people nagging that they need that 36MP or larger, if they did they bought mid format/rented it already...they want it, but that is something else.
They can't even dare to compare apples with apples. It would have been interesting to see how the D3X compares to a film SLR not with some huge Large Format cameras. We were never there... Not with SLRs. Yes, the D3X doesn't have the resolution of a large format camera. Big surprise
Is the D3X better than any (film) SLR? Well, they don't even dare compare it at ISO 100. What about ISO6400? Can you compare that
About the original question... I think (what used to be) the SLR users don't need more than 16MP but (as I said before) I guess the MF users will love the cheaper alternative.
--
My lord, you are so narrow minded and ignorant. You only see through your own limited experience and prejudices. You have NO knowledge of the art world and the fact that digital camera are being used in the art world. The large physical print can be a work of art if it is intended to be so. You've obviously never worked in a dark room. And you clearly only see photography as family snapshots to be seen on the iPad and iPhone.
--
Not the same depth of field, not even close, LOL! So a Nikon DSLR is still needed for the shallow DOF.
--
Arrogance and ignorance. A very dangerous combination for your future. On the other hand, you might make a successful politician.
....it's obvious mommy has allowed this fool to play on the computer in the basement for a bit too long.
At this point, trying to be rational with you is a complete waste of time. You're so ignorant and narrow minded.
As I said, at this point, trying to be rational with you is a complete waste of time. You're so ignorant and narrow minded.
