Yes, my take exactly. He should be reviewing something else.
Chuck Norcutt
Winsor Crosby wrote:
> That is one of the more bizarre articles I have read. This is a
> bottom of the line camera and Nikon did not "turn back the clock".
> They just kept their bottom of line camera at 6 megapixels. He also
> seems to think that a 6MP APC sensor is significantly cheaper than a
> similarly sized sensor with more MP. It may be a few bucks because it
> has been around for a while, but not enough to make much difference
> in the price of the camera.
>
> How did Nikon master the "gamut game" with film? Nikon never made
> film. What does a film camera have to do with gamut?
>
> If Nikon thinks that 6MP is all we need why does it make a 12MP
> model? The D40 "outperforms many of its bigger brethren" is
> completely unexplained or substantiated.
>
> I think the D40 is a very nice entry DSLR or even a neat back up, and
> apparently has nice image quality , but really! Hope he is a better
> economist that he is a camera reviewer.
>
> The only real review I have seen so far is the one here:
>
> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d40-review/
>
>
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, California, USA
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 15, 2006, at 8:17 AM, Brian Swale wrote:
>
>
>>Spotted in the Economist - new Nikon 6 pixel dslr is maybe better ?
>>
>>http://www.economist.com/daily/columns/techview/PrinterFriendly.cfm?
>>story_
>>id=8435209
>
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|