[BigMackCam]

There are too many folks for me to thank individually, but to all who contributed useful information and views (and to everyone, for keeping this a friendly and respectful discussion on a contentious subject), a big THANK YOU

I now believe I have a better understanding of why a larger sensor of the same era and same (or greater) resolution as a smaller sensor, both paired with relevant high-performing glass to provide the same field of view, should provide better image quality straight out of the camera. I also accept that reproduction medium, dimensions and viewing distance aren't part of that comparison, but continue to believe that - as part of the individual photographer's use cases and intents - they're important in defining whether-or-not that better image quality can be realised in the end product.

I remain interested to carry out some testing between my K-3 and Sony A7II when time allows, to see how much difference is visible - for different subjects and ISO sensitivities - when pixel-peeping. It's purely a curiosity thing, as I'm subjectively quite contented with the output from my old 10MP APS-C Samsung GX-10, even when printed to suitable dimensions for display on my living room wall. But I'll be interested to see how noticeable the difference is.

Thanks again, folks

[ZombieArmy]

I think a better question is "who cares?" In a world where the most common device that these pictures are viewed are on tiny screens in everyone's pocket while being destroyed by the compression of sites like facebook; does it matter to anyone but you if you take a shot with a 4x5 field camera or a q?

Realistically whenever those APS-C vs Fullframe threads come through with examples the only way I can ever tell the difference is the properties of full frame or apsc, not because it looks better.

[BigMackCam]

I think a better question is "who cares?" In a world where the most common device that these pictures are viewed are on tiny screens in everyone's pocket while being destroyed by the compression of sites like facebook; does it matter to anyone but you if you take a shot with a 4x5 field camera or a q?

Realistically whenever those APS-C vs Fullframe threads come through with examples the only way I can ever tell the difference is the properties of full frame or apsc, not because it looks better.

I think those who are printing (or think they might wish to print) at larger dimensions and/or for very close examination probably should care. Others, making smaller prints or displaying on digital screens with lower resolution than the camera sensor, probably shouldn't care. Although, of course, there's still image noise and dynamic range to consider...