POLL - which D800 model would YOU buy

Started Jan 7, 2012 | Discussions thread
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 58,570
Re: a peculiar fixation of a strange mind

James Bligh wrote:

36MP one had exactly the same low light capability as the 16MP one? All the evidence suggest, ceteris paribus, high pixel density same format sensors are noisier less noisy compared with low pixel density sensors.

Fixed that for you.

No, not for me but a peculiar fixation of a strange mind.


Yawn. It's a discussion that has been had many times before. The point of view you represent has been shown to be wrong, according to the theory and according to the evidence. Here's a very complete summary of the discussion:
(and the subsequent 5 posts)

Read it and it you have the capability, understand it before you accuse those simply saying what's what of having a 'peculiar fixation of a strange mind'.

I have seen the threads before but I have not read them.


But your tenacity won me over and I read them. I cannot say I understand every bit of them,

and yet you reserve to yourself the right to say what is right and wrong and say that people who disagree with you have a 'peculiar fixation of a strange mind'

my son who is an electrical/electronic engineering major may understand it better than I, but I may say I grasped the meaning somehow.

May you? How did you assess your grasping of meaning?

Still I do not agree on some very basic premises

Though you don't fully understand it.

for example comparing 100% images is wrong. If you downsize a high MP image what good is high MP?

Just perhaps it produces a better picture. What is the purpose of good lenses if not to make larger pictures? Shall we compare the resolution given by consumer lenses on A4 size images with pro grade lenses on A3 size images and declare the consumer lenses sharper?

You understand physics and know technicalities better than I but what we need here in dpreview is people like Carl Sagan rather than an Einstein.

I ain't no Einstein, and in fact what we could do with is all sorts of people that know what they are talking about in whatever capacity. You might think that Sagan was a better communicator and less of a physicist than Einstein, and you might be right, but the brilliance of Sagan's communication was not in playing with the truth to make it easier to communicate.

You may become a Sagan. Of course if you wish to.

I would be extremely honoured if anyone ever put me in the same league as Sagan. It won't happen.

P.S.: Charles Darwin had remarkable intuition although he didn't understand genetics and didn't even know the presence of DNA.

It just shows how little you understand. Einstein's work was not based on 'intuition' (even though he might have had it) - it was based on meticulous experiment and scientific analysis. And while Darwin himself wasn't much of a mathematician, he knew when he needed it and he turned to those who could provide it and understood the limitations he had to work with. It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that any old ignoramus is comparable with Darwin. Darwin wasn't an ignoramus, he was a genius. Or to put it more bluntly. Darwin's work was a model of scientific investigation and challenging prejudice and he was right. Your approach is no investigation and following prejudice, and you are wrong.

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