>>4243804dont waste your time then. he isnt. he was rambling about the importance of every 1/10th of a micrometer of pixel size for cropping so i told him that it wasn't important and that the picture would look like shit past a 1.5x crop (36+mp) or any crop (<36mp) no matter what.
i posted my zoomed in shit. i asked him to post his so we could marvel at the superior detail. all he had to do was take a picture of a cat from a few feet away, with a lens that compensated for whatever the differences were, and crop. he wasn't able to. what he was able to do, was pull a bird based comparison off flickr of an a7riv vs a 90d without any context for how they were edited. unfortunately, in addition to failing to apply basic thought processes and posting some mystery meat shit rather than his own work, his eye is so bad he picked a shot for the 90d where they missed focus and cranked the sharpening slider (it was a worse composition as well) making a comparison even more impossible.
he literally argued in favor of pixel peeping then, and now says pixel peeping doesn't count because he can just post everything postage stamp sized.
there is a 0% chance cANON is actually a photographer, and not an online pundit who owns a dusty camera and used it maybe five times. he talks out of his ass 100% of the time and is mostly here to post /pol/ shit about jews, muh russia, and the moon.
ad hominem ceases to be a fallacy when it's a question of basic competence and the ability to back up your theories with evidence.
crop vs full frame - does it matter? - yeah a little, more if you use cheap gear and shoot sports or do video for pay, then APS-C can be better at some things, t. recommends micro four thirds to macrofags and birdfuckers (pic is about a 4/3 sized crop iirc) but most people benefit more from full frame being so entrenched it hits the features/price/quality/availability sweet spot and faster wider lenses are a lot of fun.
