Rip off?

http://blogs.smugmug.com/don/2007/02...ng-ripped-off/

Discuss.?

I think folk do get a bit wrapped it with megapixels.

I'm sure we'd all agree the 10MP is better than 2MP but it's not the be all and end all.

I posted something about this a while back (goes away to find it)


here it is............

Perhaps I should have included this in the post about 'full frame' DSLRs but I thought it worthy of it's own thread as it was a good example of why more mega pixels isn't always best.

The new Canon EOS 1DS MarkIII is a mind blowing 21MP and about £6500

I was one of those folk that subscribed to the more MP the better however having spoken to a Pro photographer friend of mine (and then seen this article) I thought it worth a mention.

Quote from the mag.....

"A benefit of having fewer megapixels is the increase space available for each pixel on the sensor. Each 'light well' (whatever they are) can collect much more light which will result in much better low light performance.

So - it's horses for courses I guess but it's nice to be told that sometimes less (cost) can be just as good for certain things.

The link just goes to a blank page for me :-/

But on the whole yes, it is a rip off - you'd only really notice a change if there was a substantial increase, imo.

I'd only see a 12-15MP camera as an upgrade from my 6MP camera - and a moderate one at that...