>>3982951>The fact you're resorting to a 10% difference in contrast between black and white to define resolution is hilarious. That's 45% grey to 55% grey.It's also the traditional extinction point in resolution tests. That you do not know this is hilarious.
>Mtf50 is the standard for a reason. MTF50 is the traditional point chosen to measure sharpness, not extinction resolution. The point is that in a cropping/reach scenario, the pixel densities we're talking about are NOT capped by lens resolution.
>And the best quality lenses struggle to hit that on a FF 24mp sensor in the very centre. No, they don't. They don't even struggle on 45-61mp sensors in the center when stopped down 1-2 stops. Some even when wide open.
>Yes if you increase lens or mp count you will see a difference in quality, but this is 95% in favour of the lens\sensor size, This is wrong on two levels. I'll address the level most relevant to this debate: sensor size is NOT in play here. To achieve the same magnification on a Sony A7rIV as on a M6 mark II, with the same lens, you have to crop to the APS-C center of the A7rIV. That's your STARTING point. Your format advantages just went out of the window.
Given the same lens, for any chosen cropped FoV/magnification, the Sony has to be cropped more from its starting point (FF) to end up at the same magnification (same physically sized subsection of the sensors). At that point the M6 mark II will be sharper and more detailed due to the higher pixel density. Everything else is the same.
Let's say you've cropped the A7rIV so far that you've hit some acceptability limit. That could be MP for your print size or sharpness. At that point, the M6 mark II will be able to go a little farther. Period.
>hence why shots from an a7riv or an a7iii look almost identical, LOL pic related.
