>>3890304>The mp race ended long ago, No it didn't.
>>it's just a coincidence imaging resource stopped testing and deleted their results, they were correct!WTF are you talking about? They didn't delete shit. They're just not testing NEW cameras to that depth.
>Has higher pixel density than the 61mp a7riv? Can you maths?A7r IV pixel pitch is 3.76 microns. Samsung NX1 is 3.63 as it's a 28mp crop sensor. Can you maths?
>>Wahhh dxo are lyingNo, they're presenting their results in a way that misleads normies.
>Not really, you're never going to get past half of what FF can do, Pic related kid. The FF is sharper but it is not nearly 2x as good.
>I know just how to read mtf>please explain what these mtf chart terms meanLMFAO! You need to just stop posting now.
https://shuttermuse.com/how-to-read-mtf-chart/>(not lpmm, that's lines per mm, not line pairs, you fucking retard). Unfortunately they use the terminology interchangeably on different blog posts, which is a problem. I contend they actually mean line pairs per mm. In "More Ultra High-Resolution MTF Experiments" they say
>So we checked some new lenses all the way up to 240 lp/mm, something sufficient to make a 200 megapixel FF camera worthwhile.240 lines per mm only equals 50mp. But 240 line PAIRS per mm equals 200mp.
>And that was hitting 50% in the very centre only.Do details disappear at 49% contrast?
>Stopped down to f4 though...I can see the page where you grabbed the graph and I see no mention of f/4 any where.
>>Resolution doesn't depend on contrast!>Yes it doesOf course it does. But resolution is best judged at MTF10, sharpness at MTF50. DxO is presenting their sharpness data in a way that misleads normies to think "hurr durr this combo can only resolve 11mp."
>>If I choose a FF body from 17 years ago that limits the resolution to just 12mp, it can get outresolved by a crop camera less than 2 years old!Yes. So your statement that FF is ALWAYS better BECAUSE MUH PHYSICS! is wrong.
