New Nikon DSLRs

[PeterW]

Ron,

I believe it follows a square law, not a linear law - length multiplied by height to give area - just the same as definition or grain in a wet dakroom print.

As I see it, to give twice the resolution of a 5 megapixel camera, or keep the same resolution in a print twice the size (four times the area), you would need 5 squared, or 25 megapixels.

My son's Pentax *ist DL2 with 6 megapixels has roughly twice the resolution of my little Epson PC 850Z with 2.1 megapixels (square root of 6 = 2.44). A 12 megapixel camera wouldn't give twice the resolution of his Pentax, it would give twice the resolution of a 3.46 megapixel camera.

That, at any rate, is the way I see it.

A case of the higher the fewer.

[bayoufoto]

Peter that is correct. That was why the much ballyhooed Canon 40D is no big deal as far as pixel count. Now the live view and the larger monitor and other things are but 8-10 is nothing to write home about just as 6-8 ws not. I can still take fabulous photos with my old DReb at 6mp but they pale in com parison to the 5D. I was going to buy a 30D but found a nice deal on a 20D and will wait. I am not so young I rush ahead. Just as I bought a 1D MKII instead of the MKIII 8-10 MP is not worth the price difference

[paulatukcamera]

"My primary reason for wanting a D200 isn't mega pixels--it's the ability to meter with MF lenses. "

Yes, agreed it does that effectively - you have to dial in the aperture & focal length for it to work, but that's no chore.

One of the main reasons I wanted the D200 was to use my MF glass. What they don't say anything about is the difficulty of focusing them on a ground glass screen sans micro prisms/rangefinder! Focus confirmation is very basic, jut a white blob. Even if it "beeped" it would be a lot more effective.

One step forward ... two back!

Paul