Paul Stenquist wrote: >Paul via phone > >> On Jan 4, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Mark Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Bruce Walker wrote: >> >>>> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Mark Roberts <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> John wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think some are still under the mistaken impression that what you >>>>> "NEED" permits you to tell me what I'm allowed to *want*. >>>> >>>> What's interesting to me is that this nontroversy is new to digital. >>>> Back in the days of film I don't recall anyone who expressed interest >>>> in buying a Pentax 67 or 645 being told they they didn't need that >>>> much resolution or wouldn't print large enough to justify it. >>> >>> But that was well before the Internet and fanboyism. >> >> Um, no it wasn't. >> >Of course negative size and sensor size aren't the same thing. In theory, >one can pack a lot of pixels on a sensor of modest size, whereas the size >of the film is the size of the film.
Sensor size and film size are very similar; packing more pixels into a given area is like switching to finer grained film. -- Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
