> Whats the point of releasing a 3Mp SLR, when 6 is the accepted norm and now > striving for 8-12? > Well, I suppose you have to start somewhere... > > kevin
2 mp digicams outsell 3 mps, and 3 mps outsell 4 mps. And actually, it's the implementation that matters. The more pixels, the higher the incidence of hot or "stuck" pixels and noise. Furthermore, the larger the file sizes, the longer it takes to download into the buffer and the fewer shots the buffer can hold and the fewer shots fit on any given size SM or CF card and so forth.... More pixels doesn't always mean "better." The 3 mp Canon D30 beats the crap out of the 5 mp Nikon Coolpix 5000 for image quality. (Of course, the D60 is coming....) "Number of pixels" is an easy-to-understand measure for most consumers, like horsepower or top speed. Americans love excess, no matter what it is, and no matter how contrary to good sense it might be (I mean, why are "Extra Strength" pain relievers appealing, when you can just take two of the normal strength ones and get more medicine than is in one Extra Strength tablet? It makes no sense. Why is a car with a 165 top speed "better" than one with a 155 to speed if you'll never drive over 100?). And while it would be foolish for me to say "X number of megapixels is enough"--nobody can know where it's all going to shake out--it's at least true that an infinitely increasing number of pixels isn't infinitely desirable. And so far, the 5 mp cameras haven't exactly set the world on fire for image quality. In many cases they're no better than the 4 mp cameras and in some cases they're WORSE. Assuming these rumors about the MZ-Dn <g> are true at all, Pentax is FAR smarter to release a 3 mp camera for $1200 than a 6 mp camera for $7000. It's all about balance.... --Mike - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
