Originally posted by tregubovav normhead you mention is still correct when you look photos via HD/4K or even 5K monitor/TV.
But it's still not true when you print photos in ISO A3 () or lager formats.
I see the differences with images made by K10D, K-5 and K-3 with the same lens and similar scenes non only the screen. Good downsizing algorithm can save details contrast and colors which you do loose when you take photo in lower resolution.
IMHO.
We actually have a forum member who printed a D800 image and 16 MP K-01 at A2, and an independent judge didn't prefer one over the other. She could see differences but she couldn't make up her mind which she preferred. There's a difference between, "you can see a difference" and one is better than the other from an artistic sense.
I tend to trust data from people who have done a little blind testing to the myriad of folks who claim they see a difference themselves. After all, if you know which is which, you are already biased.
I'm always amused when I report a test and someone says "There's something wrong with your test?" In my case I actually did a test... we test eh DFA 28-105 at 35mm on a K-5 and 50mm on a K-3 and compared images. Flipping back and forth on a 4k monitor they were identical. We loved both of them. But there was nothing in those images that suggested one was better than the other. The suggestion that you can so better because I use an inferior downsizing algorithm, I find interesting, but I'd like some proof, that the software I am using is in some way inadequate, and that there is something out there that's better.
I find that a lot of the time such assertions are not supported by any real data (test charts, blind tests etc.) , but who knows, maybe you're on to something. Maybe but unlikely.
Last edited by normhead; 09-29-2017 at 09:49 AM.