Canon registers a 32.5mp APS-C DSLR in Taiwan

I said it is in a previous post. Should I find it for you, or can you do it yourself?

It's biased, just less than photographers who think most other photographers are pros like themselves.

I don't have a dog in this fight but I would observe that the way you have worded your contributions has invited a lot of conflict - even this reply is condescending. But in any case considering yourself less biased still doesn't seem to fit the evidence I've seen here. You're not interested in higher resolution sensors, we get that. Extrapolating anything from that preference is no better than what anyone else here is doing, however superior you might feel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
I don't have a dog in this fight but I would observe that the way you have worded your contributions has invited a lot of conflict

Yes, I am aware that some people have a need to twist what I said (such high res is a niche) into something I didn't say (such high res is needed by nobody) so they could have a dog fight with me. I have no issue with that.

even this reply is condescending. But in any case considering yourself less biased still doesn't seem to fit the evidence I've seen here.

No evidence to contradict my estimate was produced, only evidence to contradict what I didn't say to begin with.

You're not interested in higher resolution sensors, we get that.

Great. When will you get my point ?

Extrapolating anything from that preference is no better than what anyone else here is doing, however superior you might feel.

I wasn't extrapolating from my preference, and you think I feel superior, you haven't read what I wrote, but rather put whatever you want in my mouth so you could have a dog fight with me. I have no issue with that either.
 
Upvote 0
Yes, I am aware that some people have a need to twist what I said (such high res is a niche) into something I didn't say (such high res is needed by nobody) so they could have a dog fight with me. I have no issue with that.

No evidence to contradict my estimate was produced, only evidence to contradict what I didn't say to begin with.

Great. When will you get my point ?

I wasn't extrapolating from my preference, and you think I feel superior, you haven't read what I wrote, but rather put whatever you want in my mouth so you could have a dog fight with me. I have no issue with that either.

My advice would be, if everyone seems to be misinterpreting you, it's not (just) their comprehension skills that are lacking (or worse a conspiracy to 'twist your words'!), but (also) poor communication on your part. Your being snarky in response to everyone tells me to ignore you in future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
You're generalising your experience.

Just yesterday I was working on a 60x40 print based on a 1Ds3 shot ( so 20MP ). There was just enough resolution to achieve it, because of the composition and subject. But don't look too closely at the dog's hair or his eyes.

Don't get me wrong. What I am replying to is the "more megapixels is useless because no-one needs to print huge posters" comments, which are wrong because sometimes they do (as you say) and because there's so much more than just printing large images that a high resolution sensor is useful for.

For me, it's important for macro photography.
 
Upvote 0
My advice would be, if everyone seems to be misinterpreting you, it's not (just) their comprehension skills that are lacking (or worse a conspiracy to 'twist your words'!), but (also) poor communication on your part. Your being snarky in response to everyone tells me to ignore you in future.
"Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me!" Kenneth Williams.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
I like the philosophy of canon that is based, in my opinion, for photography, that video and everything else, so buy your camcorders.
Cameras and videos have long since been converging. There is little reason to separate them as video technology grows. Stills will be nothing more than a frame from video. Heck the Olympus OM-D E-M5 II spits out 60 fps. My Pixel 2 XL spits out motion pix. Select a frame, done. The divide of photography and video is an artificial construct in the modern era.
 
Upvote 0
Cameras and videos have long since been converging. There is little reason to separate them as video technology grows. Stills will be nothing more than a frame from video. Heck the Olympus OM-D E-M5 II spits out 60 fps. My Pixel 2 XL spits out motion pix. Select a frame, done. The divide of photography and video is an artificial construct in the modern era.

Um, ergonomics?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Cameras and videos have long since been converging. There is little reason to separate them as video technology grows. Stills will be nothing more than a frame from video. Heck the Olympus OM-D E-M5 II spits out 60 fps. My Pixel 2 XL spits out motion pix. Select a frame, done. The divide of photography and video is an artificial construct in the modern era.
Comments like this always make me cringe. Stills and video are two very different animals. The essence of video is to capture motion and sound. It is to show subjects moving through space and time. Photography is about stopping time. Carving a split second out of the continuum and holding it up for examination. Certainly the technology of still and motion cameras have been converging, but the thought that you can simply carve out a single frame from a video and have a great picture betrays an ignorance of both still photography and video/film.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Comments like this always make me cringe. Stills and video are two very different animals. The essence of video is to capture motion and sound. ... Photography is about stopping time.
It used to until I took that pause and looked at the mechanics. Video is nothing more than a series of stills. Why this is upsetting is beyond me. Well, not really once you factor human emotion. We need - indeed, crave - attention. We're special. What we do is special. But reality says photography is a subset of videography. You can stop video and hence stop time and space, but you have more dynamic range along those dimensions. A camera - at it's heart - is a video camera with an appallingly bad frame per second spec.
the thought that you can simply carve out a single frame from a video and have a great picture betrays an ignorance of both still photography and video/film
Really? You know me? My learning? My experiences? Or that my perspective has value? Hmmm.. bold words from such little background.
One can have multiple perspectives. I get the photo =/= video perspective. As I said, been there,, got the FroKnows t-shirt. But reflection, learning, talking and listening with others shows a whole different perspective. And it's ok. Really. The rational and emotional exists at the same time. But the emotional needs to be tempered with reason and reality and the latter two show (1) the convergence is occurring from a camera equipment standpoint, (2) that construct is an artificial one since the photo tech occurred decades before crude video - what would have happened if the opposite were true with robust video recording/playback in place before stills?), and (3) biological systems (vision & brain) generally from a perception standpoint "records" video, but remembers in both "formats" (e.g. "I can see my child's first steps" vs "I can see that time I saw her face standing in time").
 
Upvote 0
Yes, I am aware that some people have a need to twist what I said (such high res is a niche) into something I didn't say (such high res is needed by nobody) so they could have a dog fight with me. I have no issue with that.
Here is a quote from you earlier "Why would anyone want to print a poster @ 300PPI". That seems to be saying "(such high res is needed by nobody)". Just saying. You aren't flogging a dying horse, the horse died quite a few posts earlier. You are the soothsayer. You believe if you say it often enough we will all become believers. Give it a break, please.
 
Upvote 0
I know that you don't seem to comprehend the essential nature of still photograph. I am not talking about equipment, I am talking about the essence of the medium. A good place to start would be with John Szarkowski.
Actually I do - you just don't seem to appreciate the validity of different perspectives. But I can see your love for Szarkowski as he developed a reputation for being autocratic. To paraphrase Szarkowski , "The failure of photography fanaticism in the face of the tsunami of videography stemmed perhaps from the sin of hubris".
By nature, art is mostly BS anyway, or at the least self-indulgent pretentiousness. But I do enjoy it still and find it useful.
 
Upvote 0
Comments like this always make me cringe. Stills and video are two very different animals. The essence of video is to capture motion and sound. It is to show subjects moving through space and time. Photography is about stopping time. Carving a split second out of the continuum and holding it up for examination. Certainly the technology of still and motion cameras have been converging, but the thought that you can simply carve out a single frame from a video and have a great picture betrays an ignorance of both still photography and video/film.
Absolutely. Taking a single frame from good video would produce a terrible still image as a general rule, as the shutter speeds required to produce good videography rarely match the shutter speed required to produce a good still in the same situation. While there are similarities in the art forms there are also massive differences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0