Originally posted by Wheatfield Your point has nothing to do with the topic, which is about the technical advantages of larger formats over smaller ones. By saying you don't see any technical advantage, it was a pretty safe bet that you are a one small format shooter, or that you judged everything by reducing it to the lowest quality possible, instagram being the great equalizer.
Brettday's post above is an example of reducing things to the point that technical advantages are not as pronounced. carried to the logical extreme, we could reduce the size of every image to 1x1 pixel to show that there were no advantages of one format over another.
How you can say you've shot multiple formats and say you can't see any technical advantage of a larger one over a smaller one gives rise to another set of questions, one of which would be is Helen Keller your real name?
I'm not debating with you about content trumping format, that is a given. A garbage image is a garbage image no matter how big the medium, but this thread isn't about that.
At times there are technical advantages to using smaller formats, increased DoF at wider apertures, faster FPS and faster buffer clearing. Whether there are technical advantages to FF depends on which part of the technical spectrum you focus on. The point is, for 99.995% percent of shooters, all images are reduced to the size to where there are no technical advantages of one over the other. How can you claim to have used multiple formats, and not know that every format has it's technical strengths and weaknesses?
Most of the large format advocates have made less than 5 large scale images, many just say they will some day. "I need large format.", is largely a poser opinion. I guess we could say "Wheatfield's post is an example of enlarging technical advantages to the point that no one will ever see them in the real world although they might be visible on prints over 100 inches wide, with "might" being the operative word.
I simply will not even entertain the notion of the technical advantages of larger formats until the image is expanded past 1:1 at 109 DPI, my favourite resolution for post processing. That's 55 inches wide fir a K-3 image. So if you want to say for prints over 55" a K-1 has technical advantages over a K-3, you might have a point. I say "might", because until someone does the work that demonstrates it, it's a claim of dubious merit. I have no idea how a K-3 image expanded with good software would compare to a K-3 image. In my 10 years of digital photography, I've never had cause to do that. Like most people.
My expanded to 16x20 (expanded to 360 DPI) K-3 ice images look pretty much the same as my Expanded to 360 DPI K-1 ice images. The difference n the number of pixels from side to side is about 17%. I can't tell the difference from looking at the printed images, only by looking up the files. That's my experience. If you have different experiences, please share. We wait with baited breath.
I'm waiting to hear at what size the image has to be before the FF advantage is observable in blind testing. I've been waiting since the D800 came out and the FF gushers started making these kinds of claims. All I know is shooting both APS-c and FF, the camera used to take the picture probably doesn't make much difference to how much I like the picture. I keep hoping to find a credible source that can present the information that would make me see it differently. But a 17% difference in the photographic world, where differences are measured in halves and doubles is about 67% short of what it needs to be to make compelling argument theoretically.
We are waiting here, everyone talking about the FF magic. Someone show us something we can see. It's been done for 4/3 and FF, on a cameraville video and they saw almost no difference. And you guys are advocating for FF over APS-c. I find that interesting. But I still haven't seen anything that suggests that's more than confirmation bias. That's what I found examining my own work. Serious confirmation bias with nothing to back it up.