>>3616821First of all, I gotta say I'm somewhat biased here due to being a poorfag with hdds, which makes raws load slowly when sifting through photos too rapidly. However, there should be some arbitrary cutoff point after which extra details are superfluous and unimportant, such point is different for different people and purposes.
Moreover, I do believe that all the good photos attract the eye even when viewed as thumbnails, everything else is just icing on the cake. A 4k display is ~8Mp (although the aspect ratio is different). 24 Mp @ 300 dpi can be printed 50 cm wide side, how much more detail should one need?
Cropping? Yea, I crop too, sometimes a lot. So? Gotta learn from these sloppy jobs. Cropping a lot usually means you've failed at composing, better invest in the glass or gitgud.
Speaking of glass, older lenses were made with film in mind and just won't render the details past a certain point, especially wide open. Same goes to motion blur etc. It's all so wasteful, investing in noise. Plus, higher res = lower diffraction limit, enjoy!
Finally, isn't Instagram the way all the cool kids share their photos these days? Now, I don't use it but knowing it's made with smartphones in mind it's obvious they resize and compress the hell out of the images, right? How many amateur photographers do you reckon are planning to print their stuff on a billboard-sized sheet? Biggest one I've printed for myself was 50x40 cm or so, taken on a 16 Mp camera and slightly cropped. Had 12Mp & cropped photo printed as a spread of A4-sized books and they came out looking swell. When the point was to make a panorama with insane detail, I'd just take photos at 100mm and stitch a bunch into a 100 Mp image.
And yea, people do complain about the worse noise performance, but imo it's a non-issue in recent cameras.This argument can be lumped in with the one about the blur.
tldr consumerism at work, let's leave high mp for studio and stock work, rifle is fine, d6 is 20.8mp btw kthx
