No, you show me. I have edited my post above to provide a cite for my claim...you were the one who made the assertion that it\'s a myth. Debates don\'t work by you throwing out a claim and then when I ask for substantiation of the claim, you say \"go find it.\"
Look, if you need the resolution, go for it. I just find that in these forums SO many people are so obsessed with every single minute difference in theoretical image quality that they never think about whether the print or the image looks good. My basic assertion is that if you are printing 24\" or smaller, and you create a wonderful photograph with ANY modern DLSR or large sensor compact or mirroless camera...no one is going to look at the print and say \"hmm....not enough resolution...or \"wow, great shot, but there\'s only 10.5 stops of dynamic range.\" If it\'s a good photo, it\'s a good photo. If you did your job as a photographer and captured an amazing scene or got the perfect expression and the light was perfectly captured or created....these extremely small differences in actual print quality are essentially irrelevant.
If the photo is only \'good\' because it is super sharp and detailed, then it\'s not very good, IMO.
If part of the impact of your work is that you print HUGE, where these differences are magnified and become easily visible flaws in the lesser camera, then it can take away an otherwise good shot...but most people don\'t print large enough for this to be the case.
Of course you have a point. But when you buy a camera today. And a camera that you like to use for many years ahead. How can you know what print size you gonna make on every print in the future
If you buy this 36 MP camera, you have an option to print small, medium, large or very very large. Which not a camera with little MP give you
Feb 07, 2012 at 08:34 PM
Previous versions of Lars Johnsson's message #10321733 « D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out »
