>>4306053>1:1 on 100 PPI sensor = 100 DPI image>1:1 on 200 PPI sensor = 200 DPI imageThat makes no sense. You're displaying the finished photo, whether it be printed or on a screen, at a fixed DPI. The pixel density of the sensor has absolutely no bearing on that.
>do you know the difference between 24 and 47MP? or 47 and 61MP?Yes, 23 million and 14 million pixels respectively.
>now if they advertised the pixel length or something then you can math away with ease in your calculationsThat information is listed in the specifications for every camera. I get what you're trying to say, I can't equate 24mp to a particular photo size and 47mp to another. I don't know off the top of my head how large exactly the prints would be from those photos. However it does tell me that 47mp can print larger or be cropped more than 24mp, and likewise with 61 versus 47. If I wanted to compare two different sensor sizes that's also fairly simple math, for example I know that 42mp full frame is the same as about 18mp APS-C and thus a higher res crop body would give me better results than cropping down the full frame image.
>but the 12MP from a 4/3 at 1:1 will have 2x the apparent size vs 1:1 from full frameI really don't understand what you're trying to get at. We are not in the days of film where we would shine light through a particular size section of film, a larger film giving a larger print at the same magnification factor. There is no reason why you would have to print or display the images at 1:1 based on the sensor size.
>when I say 1:1>I mean magnification>lens propertyOh I see, so you're talking about macro magnification. Again I don't see how that has any relevance. You are way overcomplicating things and it seems you're wanting manufacturers to advertise a number that would only apply in a very specific scenario, and doesn't even really matter.
