>>4397537The professional photo exhibition magazine said 20mp was enough to sub for 4x5. 500mp is just the buyers remorse on rockwell’s part. His logic about megapixels being excessive for display makes sense and then he suddenly contradicts his own source… lol! Gearfags are a curious bunch.
I have never seen a 500mp scan of 4x5 that didnt just look like someone blew up an olympus jpeg in photoshop. Whatever the technical diffracting circle of confusion transfer function is the reason, 4x5 is somehow only as good as 35mm but less grainy so it looks like digital photography after you brush off the pubes and dog hairs. You really dont need more than an om-5 and gradients in photoshop. Numbers only matter if they do something in real life, and buddy your giant numbers don’t. 4x5 = 20mp digital camera at the lowest iso setting. I’ll give you 25mp (just over 3 macbookscreens) to be nice.