Originally posted by pingflood Sure, but how often do you put your nose to a print when viewing it? Just like pixel peeping at 1:1 will reveal differences, so will sticking your nose to a 18x12 print. But in real world use, people don't tend to do that...
Well, that's the thing, it's about
my enjoyment of the images. I find a joy in higher and higher image quality not dissimilar to the joy I find encountering beauty in nature; I'm the kind of person who would own a MF digital setup even if it had nothing to do with supporting myself financially, if I were in a situation where I could afford it. I'm well aware that 98% of the viewing public who might see my images wouldn't be able to tell either way. But for what it's worth, the older 7mp images at 11x14 are starting to look a little soft even when I'm NOT looking at them very closely.
On a much more debatable and subjective level, it's the opinion of many users of higher-end imaging technology (whether larger format or more pixels) that this higher measurable image quality, when printed at the same size as a file from, say, a digital rebel, might not show any more detail per se (being limited by the printer), but display subtleties and tonal gradations that the smaller-sensor (or lower-pixel-density) files cannot produce. Of course this is a hotly contended idea, but I tend to believe in it, both from the images I've seen produced by some other artists and my own observations with equal-sized prints from my old camera and my new camera.
Basically, if you feel that this is all a bunch of hogwash and that the images produced by digital cameras
haven't gotten any better since the digital rebel, why don't you just shoot with what works for you and let all the silly people who think buying newer cameras will give them the potential for higher-quality images keep injecting funds into your favorite company?