>>3890212cont. from
>>3890281>If we look at the objective data, you're never going to come close to FF performance.If MP are the same (tighter pixel density on crop), then performance at low ISO can be damn close.
>The canon nifty fifty only managed 50lp\mm in the very centre, First off: you don't know how to read a MTF chart. That chart shows the lens hitting 50 lpmm on the most difficult line type at 20% contrast 20mm from center.
Second: the nifty fifty is not a sharp lens wide open. You know this but purposely chose to ignore what I actually said and cherry pick a lens tested wide open hoping to make your point seem plausible.
>Very few lenses hit 120lp\mm in the centre, Let's try again for the kids who rode the short bus to school:
Most lenses have extinction resolutions higher than this center ***WHEN STOPPED DOWN 1-2 STOPS***, good lenses even when wide open, great lenses even to the edges.
>most>WHEN STOPPED DOWN 1-2 STOPSGot it?
>dxo is right even though that would make the testing performed at Imaging Resource...using Imatest with files available for peer review...physically impossibleIt would be better to say "normie interpretation of dxo" because DxO's core testing is not wrong, it just assumes a high contrast cut off. Then regurgitates this value as some ridiculous "perceptual megapixels" nonsense. Leaving normies like you to come to false conclusions about what it all means.
That is when DxO can test a lens correctly. Again, plenty of examples where they come up with A>B and B is obviously >A in any real images.
>Of course, full frame is always better. It's basic physics.>always. ALWAYS. MUH PHYSICS!Pic related. I would agree that for the same tech and pixel density, FF is going to be better than APS-C or MFT. But that's different than saying always...ALWAYS...MUH BASIC PHYSICS!
