EOS 350D ... any good?

[mercurial]

Except for proofs I get all my stuff printed out at a local fujifilm place.

I get preferred rates now but even before that it was much simpler, higher quality, and probably cheaper than doing it on my Epson Photo printer.

Ok, cool thanks.

are you kidding me?
take it to the shop for printing
cheaper and better

Lol ok, I guess I'll have to look around.

 

[mercurial]

What? I researched it in depth. Check my topics on this forum. Basically the conclusion was that mega pixels means very little. Its a marketing gimmick that camera manufacturers are using to sell more units. Seems like you fell into that trap.

Sure, if u blow a poster up, you can notice, but thats as far as it goes. Who blows posters up anyway, certainly not me.

It's not a gimmick. More MP means more details. By your definition, I should probably get a 1MP camera, cos the 6MP camera-high_quality is also a myth.
Having a higher MP means there are more details available. Whether people may want this is another matter altogether. It also means that when you crop your images, there is much, much more clarity and detail available. But hey, do you what you like.

 

[Genius.]

All i am saying - according to research down on various photo blogs, forums and websites. All of them had no problem blowing up 6mp pretty big.

when i bought my camera, there was a massive poster at SA camera, it was done with a 6mp camera.

Its not that much of a difference, but if 4 more mp makes u sleep better at night. Its all good

 

[mercurial]

All i am saying - according to research down on various photo blogs, forums and websites. All of them had no problem blowing up 6mp pretty big.

when i bought my camera, there was a massive poster at SA camera, it was done with a 6mp camera.

Its not that much of a difference, but if 4 more mp makes u sleep better at night. Its all good

In my case, it's 6 MP, but point taken

 

[Genius.]

.

Camera vendors and consumer electronics retailers sell digital cameras as if the pixel count -- the number of pixels a camera's electronics can capture -- is the most important measure of quality. I'm here to tell you that pixel count has become unimportant almost to the point of irrelevance. Megapixels don't matter anymore.

Most of the 700 e-mail responses, including many from experts and engineers, agreed that megapixel count has been promoted (by camera stores and camera companies) as a misleading marketing gimmick for years. My argument—and my test—maintains that 5 or 6 megapixels is plenty for enlargements up to, say, 16-by-24 inch posters.

There were still a few naysayers who don't believe the results. This one was typical: "Why do you insist in calling it a pixel myth? Other things being equal, 8 megapixels DOES give a higher quality than 5; you just can't see it."

 

[mercurial]

I've said what I had to say. We can choose to believe otherwise

 

[koffiejunkie]

...objective forums, genuine forums like dpreview.com...

You haven't spent much time on the dpreview forums, have you? The bitter fanboyism (in the Canon and Nikon forums more than any other) is unmatched anywhere.

Now if you were talking about the dpreview articles, that's a different matter - they're very good.

 

[mercurial]

You haven't spent much time on the dpreview forums, have you? The bitter fanboyism (in the Canon and Nikon forums more than any other) is unmatched anywhere.

Now if you were talking about the dpreview articles, that's a different matter - they're very good.

That's what I meant! The reviews! Sorry for my poor choice of words. I was referring to their reviews. It's excellent.

 

[Genius.]

That's what I meant! The reviews! Sorry for my poor choice of words. I was referring to their reviews. It's excellent.

No where on DP review does it say that mega pixel counts for a great deal.

 

[mercurial]

No where on DP review does it say that mega pixel counts for a great deal.

Are you gonna keep on and on about this now? I already told you what I thought. Nothing you say can or will change that.

 

[Genius.]

I was just pointing out that you said that DP review is genuine and basically they took the same stance of all the photo blogs, forums and photography sites i visited took.

 

[mercurial]

Read their camera reviews. They compare images with various cameras when they review a camera, so that you can see which camera performed better in the same conditions.

 

[bwana]

.

Camera vendors and consumer electronics retailers sell digital cameras as if the pixel count -- the number of pixels a camera's electronics can capture -- is the most important measure of quality. I'm here to tell you that pixel count has become unimportant almost to the point of irrelevance. Megapixels don't matter anymore.

On a whim I had a look at the entire article and it concluded

That's right. I said it. More megapixels are bad. Here's why:

Megapixels are expensive. Assuming you have a set budget for buying a new camera, the quality of pictures generally will be better if you spend less on pixel count and more on image sensor quality, lens quality, better electronics and faster performance. I'll discuss these factors a bit later.

Megapixels are slow. Higher pixel counts means more data flying around in your camera's electronics. It takes longer to move more data than it does to move less. In general, cameras with higher pixel counts are slower to start, and they write files to disk more slowly than similarly priced cameras with lower pixel counts. All those pixels won't matter if you miss the perfect shot altogether because you're waiting for your camera.

Now surely in the last two years (since the article was penned) megapixels have become less expensive and cameras have become faster.

Anyhow I'm more concerned with other features (such as AEB) than I am with MP count.

 

[mercurial]

On a whim I had a look at the entire article and it concludedhttp://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9005180Now surely in the last two years (since the article was penned) megapixels have become less expensive and cameras have become faster.

Anyhow I'm more concerned with other features (such as AEB) than I am with MP count.

Exactly. That article is quite biased, but then again, it was written 2 years ago.

 

[Genius.]

You said

I would not be able to get myself to invest in a 6MP. I'd take nothing less than a 10MP.

Research proves that if you base your choice on the amount of mp - then you dont know what you are talking about.

thats what i was told on this forum. Now im telling it to you

Im learning fast

 

[Genius.]

Exactly. That article is quite biased, but then again, it was written 2 years ago.

Where is the article biased? On what? There are millions of articles floating around with the exact same info as that one. Stop trying to justify your comments.

 

[koffiejunkie]

This is turning into a bit of a religious debate. The reason why ldmelsa and I like pushing the 6MP cameras is not "because MP doesn't matter" - they're very good in other respects (some better than some of the newer cams). But this has been discussed to death.

If you want more pixels, nothing stopping you.

 

[mercurial]

You said

Research proves that if you base your choice on the amount of mp - then you dont know what you are talking about.

thats what i was told on this forum. Now im telling it to you

Im learning fast

Yes and that's my personal preference.

Where is the article biased? On what? There are millions of articles floating around with the exact same info as that one. Stop trying to justify your comments.

If you can't see the joke in that article, then I feel sorry for you.

 

[bwana]

high megapixels . . . low megapixels - let your photos speak for themselves.

Besides - we all know its shooting in RAW that counts.

 

[mercurial]

high megapixels . . . low megapixels - let your photos speak for themselves.

Besides - we all know its shooting in RAW that counts.

Indeed!