That is one of the more bizarre articles I have read. This is a
bottom of the line camera and Nikon did not "turn back the clock".
They just kept their bottom of line camera at 6 megapixels. He also
seems to think that a 6MP APC sensor is significantly cheaper than a
similarly sized sensor with more MP. It may be a few bucks because it
has been around for a while, but not enough to make much difference
in the price of the camera.
How did Nikon master the "gamut game" with film? Nikon never made
film. What does a film camera have to do with gamut?
If Nikon thinks that 6MP is all we need why does it make a 12MP
model? The D40 "outperforms many of its bigger brethren" is
completely unexplained or substantiated.
I think the D40 is a very nice entry DSLR or even a neat back up, and
apparently has nice image quality , but really! Hope he is a better
economist that he is a camera reviewer.
The only real review I have seen so far is the one here:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d40-review/
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Dec 15, 2006, at 8:17 AM, Brian Swale wrote:
> Spotted in the Economist - new Nikon 6 pixel dslr is maybe better ?
>
> http://www.economist.com/daily/columns/techview/PrinterFriendly.cfm?
> story_
> id=8435209
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|