Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Well, sure, but if you're going to pay £7k for a lense, why not attach 
>> it to a 20 megapixel camera? Why a £200 one that's only 3 MP? Wouldn't 
>> that be kind of like setting up a state of the art recording studio 
>> just 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 
> viewed 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 
> each day that you can take natural light pictures, or pictures that 
> aren't motion-blurred, or etc.

I realise the lense is important. My mum has an 8 MP camera, and it 
takes crap pictures compared to my lowly 3 MP camera. I'm sure it's 
because hime has a 45 mm lense and hers has a 4.5 mm lense.

Still, the higher model cameras have presumably superior image sensors, 
more sophisticated controls, and so on and so forth. If you've got £7k 
to spend on a mere lense, why not buy the most possible camera to go 
with it?

(And anyway, the £7k lense is only expensive because it's a zoom lense. 
Like, you can be in Africa and take photos of stuff in Austalia. The 
normal lenses for photographing everyday stuff aren't nearly that 
expensive - although they aren't cheap either...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message