lens resolution

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

I just got my new ,to me, 8X10 deardorff. When I put my 2 sided image senser in I found it was only one pixel, but I'm learning to live with it.

[Kevin Crisp]

Oh, I think this is true for lenses that are a lot more than a blob of plastic. I occasionally use digital consumer grade cameras for snap shots. I recently replaced my broken Nikon Coolpix 950 with the model 5400. The lenses on both are multicoated zooms, on the newer one I think it is even ED glass. The megapixel count doubled, more or less. When taking a photo at a high quality setting, the difference is a difference, but not a significant one. When greatly enlarged, the small megapixel camera's image will suffer from showing its pixels. The higher megapixel count camera can make pictures which can be displayed larger before the pixels become detectable BUT before you get to the point where you start seeing the pixels the photo is so fuzzy it really doesn't make a difference. The lens doesn't have the resolution to deliver and take advantage of the higher megapixel count. The new camera was originally in the $500-$600 range, though with the $200 rebate it came down to under $200, net. It has been replaced with a new model. I am sure for more money there are lenses for pros which can take advantage of large file sizes, but for 95% or more of what is being sold, I think Kodak has a point, and not just about Kodak product. The megapixel count has become a marketing technique that has little if any bearing on the quality of the end product as used by most of the people buying them.

[Gene Crumpler]

I have to share this. In the last couple of months, I've talked with two digital "photographers?" who saw me using my hasselblad and they told me that they liked digital better than film as long as you don't look TOO closely at the prints!!!!!