>>3354503> something that can not be made with >20Of course you can as long as it's meant to be viewed from a meter or two away.
Pic related, it's based on a human perception model when people CAN'T tell the difference between that and higher resolutions anymore, not based on the point where an image may be "too ugly".
That said, doing that resolution actual on a 24MP 6000x4000 ish camera needs a relatively good prime. But yea not too hard.
> Maybe 50MP just isnt worth it for the current passion and vision for it, since i would not actually use it often.Probably.
>>3354506> 5D III worse? Obviously, but it's not that bad regardless. Do not get the 5D II though, that AF and so many more things are pretty terrible.
> 6D II 10MPEh? The sensor on that one is 26.2MP. It's a pretty comfortable compromise camera, even more so if you insist on a Canon.
