On Oct 17, 2008, at 12:54 AM, Andrew Fildes wrote:
> That'll have to be a high-res D3x and/or D700+ of course.
> 'cos the more megapickles you got, the better the pic.
Hummmm. The Tongue in the Cheek is implied? Or am I just inferring?
FWIW, the picture on my home page, www.bwp33.com, was shot very early
one morning with the D3 at ISO 3200, f/5.6 at 1/320th, using the
Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR. I know I hit it with some Neat Image to smooth
it out a touch, as excruciatingly fine detail is not what this shot
is all about. But I like the shot, not only because it violates rules
of composition, but also because I could not have obtained it with
any other camera. I've blown up the image to 12.75x19 inches, matted
to 18x24 inches, and it looks quite good. 12.1 megapixels. (Actually,
blown up may be an overstatement. The native size of this one,
according to Bridge, is 9.2x14 inches.)
Natch, your mileage will vary, and, I know, the image is too small on
the web to really tell anything about the effects of noise
reduction . . .
--Bob
www.bwp33.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|