You utter utter swines!

[MicrosoftBob]

The pixel wars only really comes into the low end beginner cameras when hobbyist think that more is better

I got a D3200 as a cheap second body to use with good glass, and the mega pixels do matter if matched with decent lenses rather than the kit lenses that usually are supplied with such cameras

[Paddy]

To actually acheive the same resolution as a film SLR finally in a consumer DLSR

WM-BS

DSLRs still can’t get near the resolution of the older 25-50 ASA film. There is still nothing on the market to compete with 2¼ square even though these cameras can be bought for a pittance.

[doodab]

To actually acheive the same resolution as a film SLR finally in a consumer DLSR

The cheap lenses that most of the low end ones come with are the issue there. In the old days you'd get a 50mm standard lens that would be as good as anything, but everyone started knocking out those cheap plastic zooms on their low end SLRs and the IQ went to tulip, and that happened long before consumer dSLRs came along.

Compare images from a film camera with a cheap zoom lens on with even an oldish DSLR like my 20D with a decent lens and the difference is night and day in favour of the dSLR.

[SimonMac]

The cheap lenses that most of the low end ones come with are the issue there. In the old days you'd get a 50mm standard lens that would be as good as anything, but everyone started knocking out those cheap plastic zooms on their low end SLRs and the IQ went to tulip, and that happened long before consumer dSLRs came along.

Compare images from a film camera with a cheap zoom lens on with even an oldish DSLR like my 20D with a lens and the difference is night and day in favour of the dSLR.

Ask any serious tog and they will say the glass makes the most differences of any component

[MicrosoftBob]

The cheap lenses that most of the low end ones come with are the issue there. In the old days you'd get a 50mm standard lens that would be as good as anything, but everyone started knocking out those cheap plastic zooms on their low end SLRs and the IQ went to tulip, and that happened long before consumer dSLRs came along.

Compare images from a film camera with a cheap zoom lens on with even an oldish DSLR like my 20D with a lens and the difference is night and day in favour of the dSLR.

I've yet to see any DSLR system where the standard 50mm f1.8 isn't better than the kit lens they supply with the DSLR (Although arguably on non full frame a 35mm would make more sense because of the crop factor) and would not cost any more and provide a better learning experience for a begineer

I still use a 50mm as a portrait lens, they're always sharp with good bokeh, and just as important very lightweight and make you look like an amateur....which is useful sometimes

[MicrosoftBob]

Ask any serious tog and they will say the glass makes the most differences of any component

I've used a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 on a budget Nikon 3200, the results still look stunning

Even cheap DSLRs benefit from decent glass

[OwlHoot]

Why on earth would you want a 40 megapixel camera?

Why on Earth not? When it comes to pixels, more has to be better surely?

Provided the lens is the size of a dinner plate too

[doodab]

Why on Earth not? When it comes to pixels, more has to be better surely?

Provided the lens is the size of a dinner plate too

In a given area more pixels means smaller pixels means less dynamic range.

[MicrosoftBob]

In a given area more pixels means smaller pixels means less dynamic range.

That used to be the case and was Fujis excuse for for keeping at 6 megapixels for years, and then everyone else started bringing out DSLRS with more mega pixels and matching their dynamic range

I still love my S2s, S3s and S5s for their film like qualities, but they were a commercial disaster and even Fuji realised they'd lost the war and moved on

Go back ten years and it was more megapixels at the expense of dynamic range, but I think with current technology they have managed to have both

[doodab]

I've yet to see any DSLR system where the standard 50mm f1.8 isn't better than the kit lens they supply with the DSLR (Although arguably on non full frame a 35mm would make more sense because of the crop factor) and would not cost any more and provide a better learning experience for a begineer

I still use a 50mm as a portrait lens, they're always sharp with good bokeh, and just as important very lightweight and make you look like an amateur....which is useful sometimes

Yeah, I have an 85/1.8 for the same reason. I got rid of the rest of my short primes after I bought the 17-40L though. I just didn't use them.