dasrocket wrote:
Actually, the 7 has exactly 50% more resolution (16+8=24).. Tariq, you are describing the math for 100% more resolution (i.e. double).
I don't think that's the case. Megapixel difference does not equal a 1:1 resolution change as it takes quadruple the megapixels to double the resolution. The formulae to find the theoretical resolution difference is (as far as I know):
Square Root of (higher MP camera divided by lower MP camera).
dasrocket wrote:
Actually, the 7 has exactly 50% more resolution (16+8=24).. Tariq, you are describing the math for 100% more resolution (i.e. double).
Number of pixels do not equal resolution. Resolution is usually a one-dimensional quantity (such a line pairs per mm). You need 50% more pixels in the vertical and horizontal direction both to get 50% more resolution in both directions.
legaltrouble wrote:
So Sorney1 was right. He shouldn't pay a dime over $763.
for $187 I certainly would buy a new setup with full warranty, etc. and not something that very possibly could have been kicked around. Maybe to save $250 I would "chance" it.
I don't doubt that somebody sold a used 5N for $480 which is only $170 off of new price but I wouldn't.
sorney1
Back in the olden days when I was selling "mint" nikon and Nikon mount equipment to friends at work I got about 66% of the best legitimate price, usually B&H ads, and this was not anonymous sales to anonymous folks on the internet. that would put the 5N and EVF at about $634 for what I would consider to be a "fair" price.
sorney1
sorney1 wrote:
Back in the olden days when I was selling "mint" nikon and Nikon mount equipment to friends at work I got about 66% of the best legitimate price, usually B&H ads, and this was not anonymous sales to anonymous folks on the internet. that would put the 5N and EVF at about $634 for what I would consider to be a "fair" price.
sorney1
Yeah, ebay/ Photo.net/ internet changed that equation to the better for sellers, much to the chagrin of places like KEH.
p.2 #11 · NEX-5N vs. NEX 7: What is the consensus?
sorney1 wrote:
Back in the olden days when I was selling "mint" nikon and Nikon mount equipment to friends at work I got about 66% of the best legitimate price, usually B&H ads, and this was not anonymous sales to anonymous folks on the internet. that would put the 5N and EVF at about $634 for what I would consider to be a "fair" price.
sorney1
Well, the market is much more efficient now than back in the day.
p.2 #13 · NEX-5N vs. NEX 7: What is the consensus?
The 5n came out last fall, and the 7 has really only become widely available in the last month or two. It seems that most nex models are on about a year or so refresh cycle, although I'd imagine the 7 will be on a 2-3 year refresh cycle.
p.2 #14 · NEX-5N vs. NEX 7: What is the consensus?
It has always been my understanding from those in the know that Quadruple the megapixels = 2x the resolution. Hence a 12mp sensor provides twice the resolution of a 3mp sensor.
p.2 #15 · NEX-5N vs. NEX 7: What is the consensus?
dasrocket wrote:
Actually, the 7 has exactly 50% more resolution (16+8=24).. Tariq, you are describing the math for 100% more resolution (i.e. double).
No, Tariq is right. It's because you have to calculate the resolution increase in two dimensions.
Try this. Open a NEX 5n image in Photoshop (or just make a blank file sized at 3264x4912 pixels). Now, upscale the image by 50%. The resulting pixel size will be 4896x7368. Multiply those two numbers. that's 36,073,728.
In other words, if you want 50% more resoultion than the NEX 5n, you need 36mp.
p.2 #17 · NEX-5N vs. NEX 7: What is the consensus?
Good way to show how in the real world, the megapixel increases just don't have that much of a difference. Back in the day going from the a 3 meg Canon D30 to the 8 meg Canon 20D was a huge deal, but anymore its largely academic for most users. Going from 16 to 24 for example just isn't likely to show much of a difference except in the handful of times one may choose to make a large print, and even then, is printing something 2" larger really going to make or break the overall impact of the image ? Probably not.
I'm not saying resolution isn't nice, and if your in the business of selling 16x24 prints on a regular basis, then its a no brainer, but for 99% of people, there just isn't going to be much of a difference in their images.
Its diminishing returns just like anything. When I used to be into souping up my cars, there was always the good bang for the buck upgrades like an exhaust that netted some additional power you could tell. But then they really got pretty small, and more expensive. Titanium valves and lifters for example, about 2% more power at the near redline for a huge investment. Really doubt you could tell the difference and in normal street driving your not even taking advantage of what they can do anyways. You have to be driving at 9/10th's, just like with cameras you've got to be making really large prints.
p.2 #18 · NEX-5N vs. NEX 7: What is the consensus?
Since I use the NEX system as a travel camera primarily, the 7 doesn't offer me much that I don't get from the 5n. I'll hold onto my cash.
I do have an old NEX-3 that I may sell because it's not doing anything but collecting dust. I've been keeping it just because resale value is pretty small and I can let me sons play with it.
p.2 #19 · NEX-5N vs. NEX 7: What is the consensus?
millsart wrote:
Good way to show how in the real world, the megapixel increases just don't have that much of a difference. Back in the day going from the a 3 meg Canon D30 to the 8 meg Canon 20D was a huge deal, but anymore its largely academic for most users. Going from 16 to 24 for example just isn't likely to show much of a difference except in the handful of times one may choose to make a large print, and even then, is printing something 2" larger really going to make or break the overall impact of the image ? Probably not.
...Show more →
For making large prints, there is actually quite a bit of gain at each step in going from 16 to 24 to 36MP's. Surprisingly, it's more of a real world gain than the theoretical resolution increase might indicate because, in practice, the higher MP file takes interpolation better and is able to be enlarged to much larger sizes than the numbers themselves would lead one to expect as compared to the lower MP file. So, for instance, even though going from 24MP's to 36MP's gains one "only" 22.5% in theoretical resolution, in practice it can be the difference between making a 24" x 36" versus a 40" x 60" (which the D800(E) can comfortably do at 240PPI) because the 36MP file interpolates up much cleaner. Quite a bit of difference between the impact of these two print sizes. This is also why the graph above showing MP vs Print size is not very accurate, at least in practice.
p.2 #20 · NEX-5N vs. NEX 7: What is the consensus?
+1 to those views Tariq expressed.
And 16Mp to 24Mp goes from 11 x 16.5 to 13.3 x 20; and expressed in another way (more to the point of the viewing experience), the gain in 'print real estate area' is an impressive 47%. To get an appreciation of what this means try going from a large monitor to one with 68% the screen real estate with the same resolution - it's far from trivial.
Then there is: cropping for those whose subject matter does not always fit the 3:2 ratio, future proofing for as yet undeveloped output media, advances in computing storage and apps, and card speed making large files easy to handle, in-camera small file shooting, printing at higher than usual dpi resolution (the Lambda does 400dpi, for example).
but I wouldn't.