Upload & Sell: Off
| p.1 #6 · After all that hype, hoopla and hysterics… |
Why would I, or anyone else, need 36 MP camera if most of the people who own printers, and they are small minority, don't print bigger than 13".
You rather answered your own question by acknowledging that there are people who do print larger. Clearly, the 36mp camera is for them, not you, even if they are a minority.
If I were a super perfectionist then I would consider MF camera, but even then I'm not sure I would discern the differences between prints from a good 12-24 MP camera and MF . I must confess that I don't print regularly bigger than 13x19 and seldom 16x20 since my budget for framing is limited as well as space on the walls.
You may be printing too many pictures (a matter of selectivity). Wherever I display images, whether on my own wall or in a web gallery, or one of my portfolios, or the couple of places I have public displays, I'm always removing old work whenever I create a superior example. Space is always finite, so it's always a matter of displaying what is best at any point it time.
I can see degradation in print from my D700 as soon as they are interpolated up
Yes, a good eye can tell the difference as soon as interpolation begins, but if two comparison images are displayed small enough that neither has been interpolated, it's difficult to tell the difference. Actually, the same was true of film, too. A 35mm contact print looked as good as an 8x10 contact print...it was just whole lot smaller. But the moment you enlarged the 35mm a bit, you could tell the difference even in small prints.
Whether it's acceptable enough has a lot to do with the subject matter--there are viewer expectations of detail for some subjects that doesn't exist for other subjects. And some people who have not experienced the amazing subtle surface tonality of prints from larger formats simply don't yet know what "good" is.