Originally posted by beholder3 I do hope you do understand that taking the image of a 16x24mm apsc sensor and printing it to your 16x10 inches involves a LOT of magnification. And less so if the image had been from a large format film camera.
Please think very carefully about the important point that pschlute has stated far better and far more succinctly than I've done: Pixels in an image file do not have a physical size.
Now this next bit is going to blow your mind: a 16"x10.88" print from a 16 megapixel file is effectively a contact print. It's a print at 1:1 resolution, in which one pixel on the sensor equals one dot of ink on the print (told you it would blow your mind).
It can seem counterintuitive, which is why so many people prefer the comforting myths of equivalence, but when we're talking about digital photography the physical size of sensors and screens usually has very little to do with things. After all, your computer doesn't need to know the physical size of your monitor to display photos properly, does it? All it needs to know is the pixel resolution