>>3261888Yes, a 10,000MP medium format sensor would have smaller pixel pitch than a 1mp tiny sensor.
Just as 12mp Q has smaller pixel pitch than 45mp D850
The only reason you rephrased it the other way around is because you feel that these statements are an affront to large sensors and because you identify as part of that "tribe", you feel personally offended by it.
At this moment you're perceiving higher pixel density as being a "positive" thing, and the fact that larger sensors have lower pixel density is making you feel like your "team" is losing. Of course, all these feelings are misguided. Higher pixel density in general is not a good thing. If you can have more pixel while maintaining low pixel density (ie. large format sensors), then that is preferable.
However you've become locked into this localized pissing match of pixel density trying to win the argument on behalf of your "team". But in the end we come to the same logical conclusion, smaller pixel pitch requires better resolving lenses to look "sharp", whether it's a 12mp Q or 10,000mp medium format camera.
a large format sensor with photosites the size of golf balls doesn't need the glass in front of it be that amazing to produce stunning results. which is a good thing because larger sensors need to produce a sharp image across a wider area than does a tiny sensor. not to mention the SNR gains from having larger photosites. but that's not what we're talking about here, we're talking about an old lens being so good that it's sharp on a tiny sensor with tiny pixel pitch. that's an accomplishment.
p.s. 100mp hassy has pixel pitch of 4.6 μm, which is still more than d850 and the Q
