Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Well, sure, but if you're going to pay £7k for a lense, why not at
tach 
> it to a 20 megapixel camera? Why a £200 one that's only 3 MP? Woul
dn't 
> that be kind of like setting up a state of the art recording studio jus
t 
> to record the sound of a broken music box?

No, because the megapixels don't make or break the image. Unless you're 
taking photos intended to be blown up to beyond poster size and then view
ed 
from inches away, the pixel count is irrelevant.

The lens, however, lets you take pictures you wouldn't otherwise be able 
to 
take. Even a small quality change in the lens adds or removes an hour eac
h 
day that you can take natural light pictures, or pictures that aren't 
motion-blurred, or etc.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message