OT: 6 megapixels best format for your woodworking pictures?

Ahhhh.. doing to good cop bad cop thing, eh?

F A I L

Somehere in the back of cobwebbed mind you may think that your response was clever.... enjoy the illusion.

Other than that

F A I L

and

God, I hate idiots....

the MegaPixel race

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.

"crop out everything except your door knob"

WOuld it not be simpler to set the 1MP camera to "close-up" and shoot the knobs?

There are a few knobs I would like to shoot around here...LOL

You've been havin' a busy day Rob.

Breathe, man. Breathe.

HNY

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

Have a great New Year.

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.

All films lie. So do sensors.

I think the Nikon is the D3.

Actually, not. Shake is NOT the big problem, nor are longer times. Shutter lag is and noise.

True enough, but...the people who use those cameras are seldom going to ask for anything larger than 4x6 or a 19" screen size.

How big a market is there for a $5,000 to $8,000 camera body?

Wait a month. There will be a new version of any P&S, AFAICT.

mantically and synctacticly.

I've got two of them up on my walls right now. Actually, only 2' x 3', but what the hell...I'd have the larger if I could afford the prints.

Check out:

Well, let's see, it's big enough to keep Canon and Leica interested. Canon's full frame digitals are in their third generation.

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.