Hi Mike, > I understood him perfectly from the get go.
What did you understand? > But, if you wanna get techical > you are wrong as well. If you move closer with your 1.0x body to get the > photo framed reasonably close to to the 1.6x body you really aren't taking > the same picture either. Correct, you are changing the perspective, and I understood that issue when I clarified what the key factor I believed was important in the resultant images were. I specifically said the borders/extents of the image were the same for them to be "identical" enough for this comparison. So, technically, you are right can never get the EXACT same image between the two dis-similar cameras without some *reasonable* and understood "compromise". > Pete's right in his scenario. Well, we don't know WHAT Peter's scenario actually is. He hasn't stated it with enough detail, but Tom brought up a good point, that Peter did say "side by side", and therefore in order to get the "same exact image[s]" we would need two different focal lengths picked such that the images were the "same exact image[s]". And this, as I pointed out in my reply to Tom, means that "speculated" scenario doesn't follow. IOW, standing side by side, with the "same exact image[s]" (therefore differing focal lengths) will give the higher image pixel density to the 12MP, not the 10MP. For his "scenario" to be right, he has to have a different meaning of "the same exact image". Regards, Austin * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
