>>3890202>Wahhh I disagree with the French space agency because it goes against my narrative and implies my consumer electronics brand of choice isn't the bestLmao.
>>3890203>A 61mp crop sensor would resolve almost as much as a 61mp FF sensorExcept 61mp crop sensors show zero sign of ever becoming a thing, in the last 10 years you've managed to push it from 16mp all the way up to 24, and no large sensor maker has managed to go above the pixel density of the a7riv...
Oh, and whilst the a7riv manages to hit 90% of its pixel MP resolution, no crop lens has got past 66%, despite having a larger pixel pitch. Oh and if Sony do manage to push pixel density higher, do you not think they'd also use it for FF, pushing up the FF score even higher?
If we look at the objective data, you're never going to come close to FF performance.
>Good lenses beat 120lp\mmThe canon nifty fifty only managed 50lp\mm in the very centre, pic related. Very few lenses hit 120lp\mm in the centre, in fact the otus 85mm just scrapes over 120 in the centre, and that's a $4000 manual focus lens.
>Dxo are wrong, but imaging resource are right,even though IR don't actually offer any measurements for sharpness\resolution\mtf for this lensOh babe, you sure are deresource
>FF was sharper with this same lensOf course, full frame is always better. It's basic physics.
