Originally posted by codiac2600 Showing 100% crops is stupid because you don't stare at a print right at your nose, you don't have a monitor big enough to show a full res shot from the K20D to enjoy it, so why should I show images at 100%????

Well, falconeye has a point--but it's an engineer's point, not a photographer's point.

There are two different ways to "worry" about noise. The engineer worries about it as a kind of math problem. The engineer is interested in noise as a number representing a certain number of the originally captured pixels. This means looking at everything at 100%, where you can see each original individual pixel--whether good or noisy. I think this is a perfectly legitimate way to think about it, so long you understand that you're doing math, not photography.

But of course, the rest of us aren't engineers. I don't personally give a rat's ass whether the number of noisy pixels per 100 originally captured is higher in the K20D or the K10D. Actually, I don't care if there are pixels involved at all. It might be magic for all I know. What matters to me is how the photos I post on the web look, and how the photos that I print out look. If the K20D's photos start out noisier than the K10D's, but end up looking less noisy due to down sampling, then so what?

It really boils down to what you're interested in. If you're interested in the camera as a technical problem, then falconeye is right. I genuinely do respect this interest. I want to emphasize that I'm not knocking the engineers. We owe it to them that the cameras we use work so wonderfully.

On the other hand, if, like me, you ultimately don't really like cameras very much at all, you are much more interested in photographs, then you think of noise as a different kind of problem.

Will