Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

User ID ... I was sent the PDN Newsletter in my e-mail. Caught sight of the heading, and thought I'd take a look. Found it interesting enough, to make up that list, for my own use, originally, but then decided to research it all, and add the short descriptives, and then - the prices ... once I looked over the entire document, thought it was worthy of a share on UHH, so I tidied it up a bit, expanded the headline, and then put in the breaks, to make it more easily understandable, there were a bunch of ties - so, even though there were only a dozen numbers, with the ties, they represented no less than 21 cameras. Then, after posting, I decided to add the Legend. I was in the middle of doing that, and making minor corrections - when my hour's Edit Time ran out, so I never got to adding a definition for APS-C (it was coming) nor, was I able to make the correction to the typo for the EOS R - 30MP instead of 20MP - as written. To be honest with you, I was completely flabbergasted when you mentioned a PDF - I had absolutely no idea what you were talking about, so I became irritated, as I did not understand your reference. So, I went back and looked over the Newsletter article, and caught sight of the "read this" thing in red, and pressed on the link. Soon enough, I was redirected to a PDF - which then started to download. I stared, with great anticipation, but, several hours later, realized it would never appear.

Judging from the directive to make a cup of coffee, as one was downloading and reading it - I gather, that had I continued - I would've had to invest a great deal of time in both completing the download, and reading/understanding the article. Since I don't have a great deal of time to do this, nor the inclination to read a tediously-long document, I chose to abandon the process (it would never have completed, anyway - on Dial-Up.)

As far as becoming irritated by your constant questioning of me - in regard to how these rankings were arrived at, because I had made up the list - you seemed to think I was involved in the process. Furthermore, as I expanded the idea of publishing - beyond a simple newsletter, such as was used to deliver the data to me - into hard-cover books, and magazines - you then decried my lack of understanding of the publishing process.

User ID - I have never belittled YOU for your incorrect grammar usage and bad spelling - have I? ... All I've done is use the correct words, and hoped you'd pick up on them. ... So why belittle me, for a lack of understanding?

Perhaps, I misread the Article Title, and unnecessarily expanded on it. Perhaps, the writer DID mean it, the way I'd interpreted it - but, perhaps, he was just using it in a limited fashion - vis a vis - Newsletters. Whatever, I found it interesting to note the overall winner was an APS-C camera, and not a FF one (unless one includes the tied a7 III) - anyway, regardless - I found the overall rankings - interesting, and worthy of sharing.

Apparently, it was something G also had decided to do (as you can see from his comment) - so, I felt relieved by his remark. However, your attacks on me, for choosing to share this, were entirely inappropriate. Having said all that, I accept your apology - for the attack ... Amen!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

That's good, William ... glad you are satisfied with your chosen hardware ...

RWeisz

I agree. I have been a graphic designer for 35 years. The printer, his pressmen, and his pre-press will determine the quality of reproduction in books and magazines. I have had printers turn stunning images in to crap and a craftsman can really make them sing. I art direct the press check and make changes to ink densities as it prints to get the best quality. All of the cameras you listed are excellent. The post processing and offset or web printer will determine the quality of the end product.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Yes, I agree with you, Cam ... good to keep an Open Mind - on all things ....

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

And the ones for whom the project was commissioned, surely, Pat?

Didn't the artist, or his family - want a set, too?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

But surely that was more due to the properties of the film (given the camera may have been keyed to the film) - than it was to the camera - no?

Kodak made some very fine cameras, back in the day - didn't they, Pat? ... They even made the first dig cam, too. But, apart from a few bridges, pretty much, now - they seem to've gotten out of the standard hardware fare, and have now concentrated on other things ...

I was looking at their bridges the other day (there sure are a lot of them) and some of them - look pretty good ...

patman1 Loc: Pataskala, Ohio

Since most photos used for reproduction are rarely printed higher than 300dpi it really doesn't matter matter much what the mp your camera outputs, if your image is sharp, and color balanced and output at a dpi of 300mp your image will process equally as well. It's pretty rare ive ever supplied an image greater than 300 dpi, a couple of really hi end mags go to 4 and 500 dpi. Usually hi end presses like heidelbergs can print higher using printers ink and not high speed ink jet presses.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

That's good to know, R ... glad the list I compiled of the rankings Image Engineering gave to these cameras were acceptable to you.

Since you are here, commenting, R ... can I ask you - is there any truth to the statement given in another post here at UHH - that publishers require images from 25MP cameras, or above? ...

If so, then the optimum res of 24MP provided by MOST (if not all, now, other than the XT-3) APS-C cameras - doesn't cut it?

Actually, now I think of it - several current models - still offer 20MP, or in some cases - 16MP. In those cases, are those images - unusable?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Then, you agree with RWeisz then, do you, Pat ... that all of the cameras in the list - will do the job for publishing, then?

patman1 Loc: Pataskala, Ohio

Yes!

patman1 Loc: Pataskala, Ohio

The Kodak mentioned was a digital camera and expensive for its day, about 5000 dollars. It had some downfalls but the images were just spectacular. In a Nikon club i was in, after posting images taken with it alot of the members went out and purchased used bodies they liked the color so much, and they could use all their Nikon glass.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Oh, I see! ... Yes, that IS expensive ... ah, but the Nikon D5 is $6500, and the EOS 1Dx Mk. II is just a hair under $6G - so everything's relative!

But, I can't see anyone paying that kind of money TODAY for a Kodak camera - can you, Pat?

Somehow, the prestige attached to Kodak cameras, which existed once - is no longer there!!!!

Since you mentioned Kodacolor, I assumed it was a film camera. Do you know what? ... Spellcheck just underlined it. Just shows - Kodacolor is no longer part of everyday language - is it? ... Oh, well!!! ... {{Sighs!}}

Come to think of it - the first Canon cameras, also, sported Nikon glass, didn't they, now?

Of course, that was like - 60-70 years ago ... how times change!!!!

patman1 Loc: Pataskala, Ohio

Guess it goes back about 15 to 18 years ago when i purchased it, at the time was quite the camera, still use it!

patman1 Loc: Pataskala, Ohio

If i get on my feet soon looking at the Leica M10, got to keep it in the family, been using them since the late 60s, still my camera of choice.