>>4222606>>4222613>You can absolutely get away with 10-12 mp in a 16x20 when the subject is sports.4000x3200 printed at 16x20 will look like total shit, regardless of subject. Shit, I wasn't happy with 16x20 prints at base ISO from my d610.
>Being a zoomer you're not even aware that there was a time when 11mp (Canon 1Ds) was a big deal, and people did full magazine spreads as well as 16x20's from that camera with no complaints. Even with landscape photos.11mp was a big deal since it btfo 35mm, which was the standard for photojournalism before digital. Anything printed big was done with LF. Shit, even MF film looks grainy at 16x20.
>>4222657People shoot FF bc they are good trade-off between IQ, AF speed, burst rates, and cost. Pros (and anyone else with money) get MF digital if they want better IQ, at the cost of speed and money.
The issue with crop sensors is that they don't offer any advantages over low res full frame. A 20mp FF sensor can be read out just as fast as crop 20mp sensor. Meanwhile, the FF will have much lower noise. The only advantage of crop sensors is cost.
