Actually, that's likely right on target. I would imagine it was a trade-off between data size transmitted vs power available as top of list items at least. I'm not sure why you're crying "dummy" because I never stated anything about it being any kind f "universal ideal". Long space flights pretty much make that an impossibility anyway when one considers the rate of technological advances.
Sorry; what misinformation have I spread? If I've done so, and you point it out, I will correct same and give you credit for catching it. I don't see how a few generalities relates to misinformation unless I mis-spoke badly.
Assuming you mean what you said, it's worth pursuing to me, if it is to you. But if you're just sour-graping it then I have nothing more to add.
Yep, and worse, those fools sending seven mp images via e-mail are wasting time and bandwidth as anything beyond the Max Res of the recipient's monitor is a waste.
Largely depends on sensor size. Point and shoot cameras have tiny sensors. APS-C sensors are considerably larger, while what is classed as full-frame sensors are the same size as a 35mm frame, or very close to that. Up to a point, sensor density increases are great, but beyond about 5 MP, sensor density increases create more noise (equivalent to grain in film) than they do useful resolution. I started digital photography with a 2 MP camera that did well, even up to half of its frame in 1/3 page magazine articles, but it had other limits that led me past a couple other cameras to where I am now, with a 6 MP *istD Pentax DSLR, and a 10 MP K10D Pentax DSLR. Rumor has a 14 MP model coming out next year, but I'll have to see the improvements to believe them.
Anything over 5 MP, IMO, in a P&S is a waste of money. For DSLRs, 6 MP is a sweet spot--I've got a whole bunch of shots from my 6 MP Pentaxes (I have sold one since I bought the K10D) blown up to 20x30 with fantastic results, plus a number of full page, maybe 3/4 frame crops, in magazines, and a couple of what is called double trucks, photos that spread across more than one page (for a current example, check my article in the January '08 issue of Cars & parts, shot with my first Pentax *istD a couple years ago). From that point, you get into reproduction of ever-finer detail, something of very little use to the average snapshot photographer who puts a photo up on-screen or has a
4x6 print made. Up to 8x10, a 2 MP P&S does fine, in good light, with a relatively slow moving or stationary subject. For faster moving subjects, the shutter lag in the P&S cameras is a real problem: I have some speed shots on my web site--www.charlieselfonline.com--for those who want to see what a DSLR with almost no shutter lag can do.
One major difference with digital is that creating too fine a grain for sensor size creates grain (noise). It is simply impossible to state that more and more pixels is always better. A 10 MP point & shoot camera is a waste of money. A 10 MP DSLR is not, but it has a sensor that is much larger, thus can accept more density and give better results.
Dunno, it's been over a year since there was a new version of the FZ50 family. Panasonic started shipping their SLRs and they may have seen the FZ50 as competing.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.