> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Neukranz, > Bill > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 8:01 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: G5 [was Re: EOS 1Ds & 10D interface] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Munro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 9:36 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Seriously though, thanks. I probably would have bought a G5 tomorrow while > I'm in town. I would have been disappointed to find out later that the > cheaper G3 was a better option. > > *********************************************************** > > And I think there's no comparison between a G5 (or a G3 for that > matter) and > a 10D. > > Regards, > > Bill
Hi Bill, Then you'd be surprised to learn that a G3 when used in RAW capture format and used within the G3's ideal light levels that a G3's can yield images that are easily a match for a 10D up to about 8"X10" or so. The only thing really holding back the G's in terms of image quality is the same thing that limits most P&S cameras or any cameras using the smaller cheaper sensors, noise. It's not the number of pixels but the photosite size that matters. Image quality is more dependent on sensor size, photosite size and sensor characteristics than the number of photosites. Look at the Kodak 14N and the EOS 1Ds, pixel count has no fixed relationship to image quality except in the most broad sense. Cheers/Chip * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
