Being facietous ... by your measure compare the lateral resolution of the Hubble Telescope at F/24 (Cassegrain focus–Ritchie Chreitien) and again, by your logic a SONY A1 @ F/1.4 which delivers a smaller "PSF" than the Hubble telescope.
Why did NASA launch a massive telescope into space when a tiny SONY digital camera (even operating at a smaller "PSF") would have sufficed?
It's due to the true measure λ/D. Bigger "D" better resolution. What you miss is plate or sensor scale. An ancient 8x10 film camera crushes any of today's FF output. Ansel Adams worked his 8x10 @ f/64. His pics should have been fuzzy...right?
Further to the same point... MF normal lenses are 80mm while ff sensors have a 50mm normal lens angle of view. This is precisely why MF delivers better lateral resolution at similar f/stops and due to larger pixels better signal-to-noise. Plate scale matters, not just PSF.
MF has a built-in advantage whether with film or silicon.
BTW NIKON/CANON face the same battle.
Man, you are beating an old drum and pretend to have found something completely new.
I just waited for you to bring up the Hubble telescope. 2K by 4K (8 Mega pixel) CCDs, with a field of view of 202×202 arcsec. The high resolution HRC has a square 1 Megapixel camera with a 26×29 arcsec field of view. So when using your MF camera and a FF camera with a lens with an equivalent FOV and 1MP sensor vs. an equivalent FF with 50 MP sensor, does the MF camera have the resolution advantage and when?
MF just cannot compete with LF. Our DinA4 prints will look soo much better, MF doesn't not have a chance against future LF MILCs. Did you buy one already?
DClark just explained to you that one needs to be careful in how to compare systems. A MF system has advantages, but also disadvantages and for certain situations no advantage at all. You are only trying to emphasize the advantages.
