Quote: All of the above still holds. DXOMark PRINT VIEW is the definitive determinant of sensor performance.
I think you need to read the small print really closely to unsderstand what DxO determines.
Quote: FF has lower noise than smaller sensors, when viewing at equal resolution, or when printing to the same size.
What about equalizing DoF? The thing the people who make these kinds of statements always leave out.
Let use the K-3 and D750 for examples.....
To get to the same DoF on the D750 you have on the K-3 you'd have to shoot stop slower aperture.
Pixel peeping you get this, the K-3 at 200 ISO, the D750 at 400...
You see the problem, there is no discernible noise in either picture. SO when does this theoretical noise difference kick in? DxO doesn't define the parameters.
Quote: Viewing noise at pixel level, i.e. SCREEN VIEW, is virtually meaningless.
You mean it doesn't corroborate DxO's pointless propaganda that's main function is to sell their software? What does that make meaningless? Are you actually saying, don't look at images, listen to DxO and me. We'll tell you what's real?
I'm sorry, but I'm looking at these images taken under studio conditions, and what I'm seeing is no discernible difference in noise and the APS-c image looking sharper because of wider DoF. Now you are spouting some corporate DxO theoretical measurements, that don't mean anything in the real world, to the point you actually advise us not to pixel peep. Because reality shows how insignificant these differences are in the real world.
As for the nonsense that 24 mp of APS-c imagery is somehow different than 24 MP of FF imagery. Look at the images above. What is the difference? Blown up to the same size the APS-c still has the DoF advantage, so what are you talking about?
Where is this magical point where the APS-c image is going to suffer when being printed? All of the sudden those fine looking pixels are going to deteriorate, because they are APS-c pixels, not FF pixels? It's a fabrication. Best case scenario it's an exaggeration, worst case scenario, an outright lie. In both cases, it's not done in the name of science, it's done in the proud tradition of making up scientific mumbo jumbo and double speak, to sell product.