>>3358302Protip: don't look at any "lens test" that doesn't show you actual images. Assuming the graphed test is even accurate, the majority of people cannot interpret what they're looking at and understand what it means in real world photography.
>>3358307>Crop is half the area of ff, the differences between lenses from the worst to the best is much less than double the resolution.Resolution is not a number. It's an MTF curve, i.e. contrast at a given spatial frequency.
Take a 24mp FF and 24mp crop sensor. From the sensor pov resolving power is identical. But image details projected by the lens will be projected to a smaller circle for crop. Higher spatial frequency will equal lower contrast. In simple terms: FF is sharper ooc.
Practically speaking this is of little consequence at low ISOs (just sharpen a bit in post), and is a gap you cannot close at high ISOs (sharpening increases noise when you already have more noise).
>Even if you put an otus on you nikon, the sony with a kit lens will still make higher overall resolution shots.No it will not. Given the same lens the extinction (MTF10) resolution of both will be nearly identical as most lenses can comfortably out resolve 24mp crop pixel density at MTF10. A D7200 has an extinction resolution of 3400-3600 LPH. The A7 III extinction resolution is 3500 LPH. (See the Imaging Resource tests.)
An Otus on the 24mp crop body vs. a kit lens on a 24mp FF body might actually put the crop body ahead on extinction resolution, and even ahead on sharpness across the spatial frequency range. Extinction resolution will still be close, but a big difference in the glass can put the smaller format ahead.
>Never listen to anyone that says crop can be as good as ff. It can produce prints which are indistinguishable from FF at low to mid ISO up to at least a 24" print size (same MP sensors). You will have to sharpen the crop image to do this, but not so much that you introduce other artifacts.
