Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Marcel" data-source="post: 216920" data-attributes="member: 3903">I'm just waking up so I'll exercice my brain by trying to put into words my thoughts about this.I think some of these major companies are not always thinking about their customers and their needs. It seems to me that we might have seen the last segment of the megapixel race with the D800E. It's a great camera for professionals and studio shoots, but, put it in an amateur hands, the results might be worse than if he had a D90. I've experienced this factor when I switched from D90 to D7000 and for a short while, I wasn't getting better results because I wasn't stabilizing my camera well enough, and I also got aware that the mirror mouvement alone could change the sharpness of my shots. -1 for more megapixels.Second factor is the lens quality. More MPs mean that you absolutely need better lenses otherwise your images look muddy at times. This is not great for amateurs who can simply not amortize and deduct expensive lenses from their earnings. So I think there is a line where more MPs is not giving back your money's worth, but it seems Nikon and Canon are still trying to put more into their newer models. The exception seems to be the newer Nikon DF that is coming back to fill in the gap, and, although it's expensive, it still might be my future camera for my practical purpose.Medium format digital cameras will always be sharper than 35mm sensors. 35mm sensors will mostly always outperform APCs sensors. But for someone that just wants to have a camera that produces good images in normal situations and is not going to print wall sized prints, there are a lot of choices in the market.I thinks that's it, I'm awake now and have run out of words to type,You all have a great day.</blockquote>

Verification