11-Jan-2007, wrote TheTtruthAabout Digital
Cameras

> Episteme wrote:
> > Some may find this interesting?
> >
> > http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/
> >
> >
> > E.
>
>
> Yeah, well, Pogue's test doesn't prove what he claims it proves, since
> he used resized images from the same camera, instead of images from
> three different cameras. So he actually tested the resizing software and
> the printer quality, not the camera resolution. But using three
> different cameras wouldn't prove much either, since they would also
> differ in lenses, in exposure calculation software/hardware, and in CCD
> quality.
>
> The only valid test answers the question: Does this camera enable you to
> do what you want to with it? Megapixel count is only one factor to
> consider, and even though Pogue's test is invalid, it does make a valid
> point: higher megapixel counts don't mean much for the vast majority of
> people.
>
> Actually, the fact that most cameras come with several resolution
> settings, defaulted to the worst so that "you can take up 160 pictures"
> causes more disappointment than anything else.
>
> HTH

Exactly. Pogue's going to be wearing egg on his face if they air that show
in February. I wouldn't be surprised if he's publishing his assumptions
early to determine whether or not he should be airing it at all. It is a
valid question, but I'd like to see MythBusters take on this kind of
comparison of sensors under exactly the same conditions.

--
Z~


..

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com