>> |
Anonymous
>>235451 >Honestly, I usually shoot all of my higher-resolution cameras turned back down to 6MP!
He's right about six megapixels being enough, but this is pointless. It's like shooting 56x56 with the intent to crop to 36x24.
>There is no real reason to pay more for [D40 over] a... D80
He doesn't care about ergonomics besides weight.
>If I bought another compact camera for myself today as a serious photographer, it would be a $255 Canon SD870 IS
Thinks serious photographers don't need manual, Av, etc. Later on the page, he suggests one of these as "high performance" and an A-series as just "the cheapest." And he bitches about the *plus* that they take AAs.
>For normal people, the Canon SD750 is the way to go for its incredible mechanical and picture quality, big screen and low price.
>Big screen
Enough said. Don't throw out that's what they want, *educate* them instead of pandering to bad taste. One of the worst things about society today is that people are expected to just get what they want/what's easiest/etc. instead of *what's best.* This is the same impulse, by the way, behind the excessive pixel counts versus sensor size he and we complain about.
>The ultimate quality of any photo does not depend on the camera. A $150 camera can make the same quality photo as a $5,000 camera.
Michael Reichmann (or someone on LL) wrote a big send-up of this that had nothing to do with technical image quality, which I 100% agree has little to do with the real quality of a photo.
And that's just part of one page.
|