Actually you can choose to round of to 10´s or 0,1´s or what ever. Right? So 10% is for me more like a almost precise estimation, given with 1 figure precision, and 15 % is given with 2 figure precision, and the second is false. So actually you might say what you like, but mathematically 10% or 12,5% is much more correct than to say 15% that is simply flawed. And the point was that someone posted fine observation of about 10% difference per axis in resolution, and the response from someone was it is closer to 15%. It definately is EXACTLY as far from 15% than it is from 10%, and if you want the resolution to be enough in any project where you need A3 in 300 dpi or what ever, you are much more in safe side if you roundoff to a smaller figure... (?).
Uh, no that's not right, unless your universe is different from the one the rest of us live in right now. Perhaps Finland does round down, but then that's the annomoly, not the norm.
10% is just as flawed as 15%. Most people/countries round up, so the closest point is 13% (on that I think we agree), but only someone trying to minimize the improvement would say 10%. In this case, I think the shoe fits.....
Hmmmm... I hope you're pondering doing the same.
Osku is exactly right. And last time I looked Finland rates much higher in basic math education than the USA (sorry but true).
As Osku said mathematically 12.5 is exactly as close to 10 as 15. And mathematically there is no general convention to round off up or down in this case. A general convention would be to round off 12.5 to 10 instead of 20 if you want to stay with one significant number. If you want to stay with two significant digits you could say 12 or 13 as well. It would be mathematically necessary to round off 12.5 to 13 only if there would be some digits after the .5 in the raw data. That is if you know your math.
Well we can look forward to the following:
)) All kidding aside, the general population is too keyed up on specs and reputation. A great camera does not make a great photographer.--
Wow, and I didn't even ask for a critique. Sigh! People are so quick to lose a point it astonishes me. Regarding the red cast or magenta look and the recently posted dig on my ability to set a white balance, I used a Nik Color Efex Pro 2.0 filter to add the red cast; I like the look for this image.
Actually I only bothered to comment because I thought it was ironic. If I told you that you didn't need a D200, all you need is a Coolpix 990, and then I showed you a Coolpix shot that was fuzzy or had bad color, you might point out to me that the image wasn't exactly supporting my point. But I had no idea you were actually introducing that cast on purpose, so sorry. -Joe
--Wow, and I didn't even ask for a critique. Sigh! People are so quick
to lose a point it astonishes me. Regarding the red cast or magenta
look and the recently posted dig on my ability to set a white
balance, I used a Nik Color Efex Pro 2.0 filter to add the red cast;
I like the look for this image.
The point I was trying to make was that you don't need an 8K camera
to take a decent image. I used a 3 year old D70 with a Nikkor 50mm
f1.4 lens to get this shot.
Here's the original.
and my preferred look:
--
I see dead pixels!
