Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.alt.net From: "James Wilkinson Sword" Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.system,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.cellular-phone-tech Subject: Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 01:07:23 +0100 Organization: ~ Lines: 62 Message-ID: References: <7699542da7f01f1304183cf9c297a669@dizum.com> <150420171445165045%nospam@nospam.invalid> <210420171013465413%nospam@nospam.invalid> <210420171032312950%nospam@nospam.invalid> <210420171040573298%nospam@nospam.invalid> <210420171104408672%nospam@nospam.invalid> <210420171128465434%nospam@nospam.invalid> <210420171141311326%nospam@nospam.invalid> <2017042311221085132-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> <2017042317034948048-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32) Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:410937 comp.sys.mac.system:105263 alt.comp.os.windows-10:40618 alt.cellular-phone-tech:1439 On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 01:03:49 +0100, wrote: > On 2017-04-23 23:48:07 +0000, "James Wilkinson Sword" > said: > >> On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 22:34:32 +0100, Snit wrote: >> >>> On 4/23/17, 1:20 PM, in article op.yy5z4eafjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >>> Sword" wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 20:20:37 +0100, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 4/23/17, 11:56 AM, in article op.yy5v8qebjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >>>>> Sword" wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Here's an example taken with the same Fuji model by someone else. >>>>>>>> Download the "original size" and view it at 1:1, and note it has >>>>>>>> nowhere near enough detail to be as good as your monitor can show. >>>>>>>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/7726760@N08/2615523533/sizes/o/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Find me an example which does.... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I wouldn't know about that particular Fujifilm camera, but here is an >>>>>>> uncropped 3264 x 4896 JPEG taken with an X-E2. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> That I would say is a genuine 16MP camera. The predecessor to the one I >>>>>> have admitted it used interpolation. I had that model too. The s1000fd >>>>>> claims to be a genuine 10MP camera, but isn't. I guess in the future I look >>>>>> at example shots before buying. Maybe Fuji learned their lesson. >>>>>> >>>>> I am FAR from an expert in camera tech, but MP is only one aspect of what >>>>> impacts the final look of an image. Heck, if you view mostly on screen MP >>>>> means little (except for how much you can zoom). >>>>> >>>> It may not be the CCD, it may be the lens (which I doubt as Fuji are supposed >>>> to make good lenses), but the fact remains that the output is what I'd get >>>> from a genuine 2.5MP camera. If I reduce the size of the image by 50% (as in >>>> 25% area - to 2.5MP), then increase it again to 10MP, the result is almost >>>> identical. Therefore there was no more data than a 2.5MP image. >>> >>> The lens matters, the sensitivity, the processing done by the camera (or if >>> it offers RAW), and a lot more I am sure I am clueless about. >> >> What matters to me is I paid for a 10MP camera and I get a 2.5MP >> output. I will never buy Fuji again. Canon did not let me down, I >> will go with them in the future. > > Then you will miss out on some of the best new cameras currently > available. The Fujifilm X series cameras (X-Pro2, X-T2, X-T20, X100F, > X-E2) are a far cry from your now discontinued, 10 year old, s1000fd > bridge camera, with its small 1/2.3" sensor. > > If you are ever camera shopping you should at least take a look at what > Fujifilm has to offer these days. I made the change from a Nikon DSLR > system to a Fujifilm mirrorless X-system and I am quite happy with my > X-E2 and X-T2. Fair enough, maybe they've improved. I'll look at output samples on camera review sites and consider any manufacturer. -- Mrs. Morse: "Sam, stop tapping your fingers on the table, it's driving me crazy!"