<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Nikon announces the 24.5 megapixel D3X</title>
	<atom:link href="http://photo.blorge.com/2008/12/12/nikon-announces-the-245-megapixel-d3x/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://photo.blorge.com/2008/12/12/nikon-announces-the-245-megapixel-d3x/</link>
	<description>Photography tutorials and digital camera news</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Dec 2010 11:38:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gareth Powell</title>
		<link>http://photo.blorge.com/2008/12/12/nikon-announces-the-245-megapixel-d3x/comment-page-1/#comment-27397</link>
		<dc:creator>Gareth Powell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:52:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photo.blorge.com/?p=638#comment-27397</guid>
		<description>Interesting that a full-frame 24.5 megapixel is almost exactly the equivalent of 35mm film. The pictures that used to advertise Kodak covering almost the whole of one side of Grand Central Station in New York were shot on 35mm film.
If you need to make prints as big as the side of Grand Central Station this is you ideal camera. 
Or you could opt for the new Hasselblad that has twice as many pixels and costs about $45,000. 
Then you could probably make a print to cover Manhattan.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting that a full-frame 24.5 megapixel is almost exactly the equivalent of 35mm film. The pictures that used to advertise Kodak covering almost the whole of one side of Grand Central Station in New York were shot on 35mm film.<br />
If you need to make prints as big as the side of Grand Central Station this is you ideal camera.<br />
Or you could opt for the new Hasselblad that has twice as many pixels and costs about $45,000.<br />
Then you could probably make a print to cover Manhattan.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gareth Powell</title>
		<link>http://photo.blorge.com/2008/12/12/nikon-announces-the-245-megapixel-d3x/comment-page-1/#comment-27396</link>
		<dc:creator>Gareth Powell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:51:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photo.blorge.com/?p=638#comment-27396</guid>
		<description>Interest that a full-frame 24.5 megapixel is almost exactly the equivalent of 35mm film. The pictures that used to advertise Kodak covering almost the whole of one side of Grand Central Station in New York were shot on 35mm film.
If you need to make prints as big as the side of Grand Central Station this is you ideal camera. Or you could opt for the new Hasselblad that has twice as many pixels and costs about $45,000. Then you could probably make a print to cover Manhattan.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interest that a full-frame 24.5 megapixel is almost exactly the equivalent of 35mm film. The pictures that used to advertise Kodak covering almost the whole of one side of Grand Central Station in New York were shot on 35mm film.<br />
If you need to make prints as big as the side of Grand Central Station this is you ideal camera. Or you could opt for the new Hasselblad that has twice as many pixels and costs about $45,000. Then you could probably make a print to cover Manhattan.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

