Re: controversial paper

From: Mxsmanic (mxsmanic_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 09/30/03 

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:59:53 +0200

Bryan Olson writes:

> Is "Mxsmanic" actually looking for answers, or trying
> to generate a lot of noise and bring down the quality of the
> group?

Mxsmanic is discussing a topic. When you're ready to do the same, let
me know. 

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 20D ?? 5D
    ... No, it isn't, but noise is roughly equivalent at ... >>> high ISOs, the 5D has an advantage at lower ISO. ... I therefore find it unlikely that picture quality is better unless ... >> So the better result is due to the lens. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: 20D ?? 5D
    ... >>> Smallest individual dot resolution, noise level, colour accuracy are the ... >>> noise reduction tech the noise level is even lower. ... You said you found it unlikely that the image quality would be better in the ... >>> middle part of the lens is the best part and that is the only part a 20D ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: pixels
    ... >> same if the quality is what it should be.. ... >> I still use a Canon A40 that is 1600x1200 pixels, ... >> The only benefit of having more pixels is that you can crop the picture ... >> the signal and noise. ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: 20D ?? 5D
    ... >> quality in the 5D over the 20D. ... > noise reduction tech the noise level is even lower. ... > will use on a full size lens and not an ef-s. ... > account the extra cost, the extra storage requirements, the higher ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: Megapixels and noise
    ... Bryan Olson wrote: ... that Roger's explanation of the contribution to noise was ... Dave used to be a frequent ... the DOF thread I think has been very good. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)