yeah anything over 12 mega pixels is over kill unless your doing huge prints and what not. but under 10 megapixels is uncommon since most consumers look for megapixel, thought its not the most important thing.
@lorikzzz Seriously? You can't tell the difference between 6 and 12 megapixels??? Maybe YOU can't! That's in fact double the pixels. Think about that statement for a few minutes or hours...then come back and see what you think.
Trust me, you're not seeing it right. There is a huge difference. And it doesn't just go for DSLRs. I have a 6mp point and shoot here. It's nice. But then I had a cheaper model 10mp point and shoot. The 10mp shots were crisper and clearer than the 6 without a doubt. Far better. And that's only a 4mp difference. So yes, there is a big difference and you should think about that more. 4mp difference = 4 million more pixels. 4 million more!
I'm comparing two point and shoots together over MP. That was your point. You can't tell the difference between MP. And the same goes for SLR. You can easily see a difference between something like a 10MP and a 20MP. If you really don't think so, just go look at some full size examples. You don't seem to know much about what you're talking about. The more pixels, the sharper and clearer the image. It's a fact. Higher MP, better picture in terms of how clear it is, unless the camera itself sucks
damnn i'm not saying there is no difference but it's no really much like 10MP and 20MP and of course the image is sharper so let's both shut up cause we are spamming
hmmmm wish cnet did better video reviews... "I only had a little time with the camera" so then what are you reviewing based off of? Although their written ones aren't too bad
It's a nice feature but it's completely non-traditional for SLRs and something that you would find on more of an advanced point and shoot. I don't think it belongs on an SLR.
But do you know what new potential flexibilities it can offer the photographer? an obvious scenario is, say I am a reporter wanting to take a pic over a crowd. Some traditions must change for the good. Think about it
That's true. But you know most of those people (like the paparazzi) just use auto mode and snap away. So it doesn't matter. They can just hold the camera up and snap all they want. Now if you want to use manual and do that...good luck trying to actually hold it above your head and do all that anyway.
Okay, you think reports and papparzzi use auto-mode? No, they usually have pre-set manual modes, not necessarily having to fiddle with the setting while taking a photo. another scenario for you, taking a macro shot of a flower or a bug.. Bottom line, it definitely is a plus to the camera, what negatives does it have, it only have positive aspects. you might be increasing weight by a few gram at the most. and sacrificing nothing.
Yes, I do believe a lot of them use auto mode. At least lousy paparazzi folks. And you say pre-set but conditions are always different and if you are trying to take perfect shots, you would always be checking your settings, your exposure, your focus. This camera is for photographers. Not reporters. And I've never had a problem taking macro shots without a display like that. And the negative is it doesn't make an SLR an SLR. Don't need it.
Reviewing a camera with 1080, but quality is only 240p
legoliker7517 8 months ago
why do they think megapixels matter ??? No one even can't tell the difference between 6 and 12 megapixels
lorikzzz 2 years ago
yeah anything over 12 mega pixels is over kill unless your doing huge prints and what not. but under 10 megapixels is uncommon since most consumers look for megapixel, thought its not the most important thing.
EarDestroyer 2 years ago
@lorikzzz Seriously? You can't tell the difference between 6 and 12 megapixels??? Maybe YOU can't! That's in fact double the pixels. Think about that statement for a few minutes or hours...then come back and see what you think.
alliandsean 2 years ago
I can tell the difference but it's not a huge difference,but there is no difference for people that don't use DSLRs like my classmates
lorikzzz 2 years ago
Trust me, you're not seeing it right. There is a huge difference. And it doesn't just go for DSLRs. I have a 6mp point and shoot here. It's nice. But then I had a cheaper model 10mp point and shoot. The 10mp shots were crisper and clearer than the 6 without a doubt. Far better. And that's only a 4mp difference. So yes, there is a big difference and you should think about that more. 4mp difference = 4 million more pixels. 4 million more!
alliandsean 2 years ago
you shouldn't compare it with point and shoots because DSLRs have much bigger sensors then point and shoot cameras
lorikzzz 2 years ago
I'm comparing two point and shoots together over MP. That was your point. You can't tell the difference between MP. And the same goes for SLR. You can easily see a difference between something like a 10MP and a 20MP. If you really don't think so, just go look at some full size examples. You don't seem to know much about what you're talking about. The more pixels, the sharper and clearer the image. It's a fact. Higher MP, better picture in terms of how clear it is, unless the camera itself sucks
alliandsean 2 years ago
damnn i'm not saying there is no difference but it's no really much like 10MP and 20MP and of course the image is sharper so let's both shut up cause we are spamming
lorikzzz 2 years ago
I agree. Let's just put it to an end. But I would recommend doing some research for yourself to see.
alliandsean 2 years ago
LOL i know man i have two cameras but let's not talk about this anymore
lorikzzz 2 years ago
its beacuse she's a nikon whore
socal1000 2 years ago
Saw her do a review on another camera once...avoided all CNET reviews after that. She doesn't know anything about what she's talking about.
alliandsean 2 years ago
hmmmm wish cnet did better video reviews... "I only had a little time with the camera" so then what are you reviewing based off of? Although their written ones aren't too bad
wtfroflzomg 2 years ago
cnet Senior Editor is a dumbass! It's 15.1mp on the 50D, not 14.7.
imporacer 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
imporacer 2 years ago
Why no swivel LCD?
LTF85199 2 years ago
because.
sully2909 2 years ago
Because because what?
LTF85199 2 years ago
because its worthless
Brucey69 2 years ago
4 u maybe.. you can't speak for everyone..
LTF85199 2 years ago
It's a nice feature but it's completely non-traditional for SLRs and something that you would find on more of an advanced point and shoot. I don't think it belongs on an SLR.
alliandsean 2 years ago
But do you know what new potential flexibilities it can offer the photographer? an obvious scenario is, say I am a reporter wanting to take a pic over a crowd. Some traditions must change for the good. Think about it
LTF85199 2 years ago
That's true. But you know most of those people (like the paparazzi) just use auto mode and snap away. So it doesn't matter. They can just hold the camera up and snap all they want. Now if you want to use manual and do that...good luck trying to actually hold it above your head and do all that anyway.
alliandsean 2 years ago
Okay, you think reports and papparzzi use auto-mode? No, they usually have pre-set manual modes, not necessarily having to fiddle with the setting while taking a photo. another scenario for you, taking a macro shot of a flower or a bug.. Bottom line, it definitely is a plus to the camera, what negatives does it have, it only have positive aspects. you might be increasing weight by a few gram at the most. and sacrificing nothing.
LTF85199 2 years ago
Yes, I do believe a lot of them use auto mode. At least lousy paparazzi folks. And you say pre-set but conditions are always different and if you are trying to take perfect shots, you would always be checking your settings, your exposure, your focus. This camera is for photographers. Not reporters. And I've never had a problem taking macro shots without a display like that. And the negative is it doesn't make an SLR an SLR. Don't need it.
alliandsean 2 years ago
Great!
Chickenmaster23 2 years ago