>>4222734>You've never printed a 16x20 in your life. How would you know?You were saying?? I print several times a week. I do this for a living dude.
>Major doubt you ever printed one or had one printed. But if you did and it was shit from a 24mp FF sensor then your lens was dog shit and/or your technique was amateur hour. Don't blame your sensor for your fuck ups.I can't find the 16x20 prints I did back when I was in uni, but they're too pixelated for my taste.
>LMFAO plenty of 16x20's were made from 1Ds files, 5D files, and D700 files. In its day the 5D was a very, very common wedding camera. Again you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.And someone that knows the difference(me), sees them and thinks they look like shit.
>he first DSLRs at base ISO were not "grainy", WTF are you talking about? Why are you doubling down on being a retard?I'm talking about MF film, not early digital. Early digital was noisy. Old MF digital, like phase one p65/45/40 have more noise than modern MFT.
>>4222819Lenses have and are currently out resolving high res full frame. Other issues, LoCA and curved focal planes that are hard to fix in post are the issue now.
>>4222853>Doubling pixel count only increases the real, linear resolution by 40%, which is pretty much invisible.40% increase in print size is huge, wtf are you on. High res FF can make great prints at 16x24", a 40% linear resolution increase would allow you print 22.4x33.6", which is much larger.
>>4222865>Panasonic is really the only company that continued to understand the point of crop sensors. Yet panasonic's pro line is all FF... Really makes you think.
>>4222912/thread/
