Originally posted by normhead There is nothings as disappointing as people crowing about their low res FF cameras that provide no discernible difference over 24 MP APS_c for the type of photography they do.
My experience with pixel shift (using the K1) indicated that pixel size can decrease down to about 2.5um and still capture more details from the glass.
Therefore, currently, only the Canon 90D, micro 4/3 cameras and 1" cameras capture the most out of optics.
All other apsc models, and full frame models and medium format models, still have a lot of room for higher pixel density.
Currently, the most cost effective cameras are probably those compact 20Mp from Panasonic.
Originally posted by normhead Except for the snob value attitudes of some who seem to believe a half frame digital is only half as good as a full frame when in fact about 90% of what a full frame can do a half frame APS-c can do, and some times APS-c can do better.
Your interpretation tells you about a snob attitude. If I want more image quality, but the price of more image quality increases much faster than quality, what can I do about it? I'd much prefer that a full frame 50Mp camera would cost $1000, and MF such as a 645Z would cost $1500... What can I do to have those prices go down so that other folks stop thinking I'm snob?