Price is the only reason I can see. A high-res small sensor is cheaper
that a med-res large sensor. You can already buy P&S with tiny 10-12mp
sensors.
Interestingly enough the 5mp on my Oly is just about perfect for what I
am doing with it (7.5x10 inch images on 8.5x11 paper) as it gives me
200-256ppi non-interpolated for the print. If I could afford a bigger
printer that would be marginal however. BTW the 3:4 image gives me
basically the same resolution for that size print as one gets with a 6mp
DSLR because of the crop with a 2:3 format. The higher noise level of
the small sensor does not seem to be a problem at those print
resolutions either. I do wish the thing had better ergometrics for
manual control however.
Being able to deliver an 8x10 print before the event was over has been
my holy grail for decades. Now that I am no longer in the job market I
can do that <Go figure?>.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Cotty wrote:
On 29/9/05, Tom C, discombobulated, unleashed:
I guess that sort of sums my feelings. I agree with Paul that I haven't
found 6 MP inadequate, but then what have I to compare it to? Suppose we
took a photo and wanted to crop it by some factor for display or printing.
Assuredly a 12, 16 etc., megapixel camera will allow this to be done with a
higher degree of (dare I say resolution) quality, than a 10MP camera, or
than a 6MP camera.
Excuse me for being a complete dolt here. But can someone tell me what
the point of an APS-C sensor DSLR at 16 or even 12 MP is? Sincerely, I
fail to see it.
If they're going to cram 16 MP onto a chip that size, why not just make a
24x36mm sensor?
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com
_____________________________
