CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

24mp is 6000 x 4000 pixels. When you divide 6000 by 300 (DPI) you get 60 inches. If we are resolving to the pixel level, I don't know how many of us are printing photos 60 x 40 inches, or at 36mp would be printing at 74 x 49 inches. Am I wrong, or does this seem to be somewhat irrelevant?

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

New math?

wmsj12646

Your math is correct and makes the point I was attempting. For those interested in large “blowups” to wall-sized images the greater megapixel count typical of FF cameras may be of some advantage. As you and the previous poster point out though the advantage may not be dramatic for the pixel count differences between APS and FF cameras that are on the market today.

wmsj12646

Oops. The math isn’t right after all. The long dimension is 6000 / 300 = 20 inches.

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

You are right. I got 3 hours of sleep last night. But the question is still valid even if the dimensions are off by 3x. How many of us have printers that do 300 dpi at 20 inches by 13.? Most printers are not going to resolve the amount of detail at the pixel level anyway. I have some very sharp and detailed 8x11 prints from some of my earliest digital cameras with many fewer pixels than 24mb. Yes, pixel peeping on a high quality monitor may reveal more detail at 36mp, but I have seen an awful lot of documentation that declares little or no advantage with prints. I have printed both full frame from my 600 and my 5500 and the earlier 90, and on a normal printer, can see no difference. Now maybe If I had posters made by a professional company and examined them with a magnifying glass . . . . ??

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Many of us. Every one that owns a Canon 9000, Pro 100, etc. and these are not expensive printers. Most of us have bought them on sale (which they usually are) for the bargain price of $150 or less including 50 sheets of 13x19 paper. These and the Epson equivalents are spec’d at 4800x2400 dpi max.
For example: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/893738-REG/Canon_6228b002_Pixma_Pro_100_Photo_Inkjet.html?ap=y&c3api=1876%2C%7Bcreative%7D%2C%7Bkeyword%7D&gclid=CjwKCAiAn5rUBRA3EiwAUCWb2zvkn97XHpSpCK-JAJf3N6W_zRtXFij4GXIySalVJYnMB7U2yFS8nBoCfzEQAvD_BwE

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Some (not all) FF have more pixels then some (not all) APS-C cameras. There is no need to use FF or APS-C as a surrogate for the actual pixels on the sensors being compared. It is a known number for any given sensor.

An APS-C 24MP sensor has the same number of pixels as a FF 24MP sensor. Now the size of those pixels will be different, but that is not what you were talking about.

Meganephron Loc: Fort Worth, TX

It may not be what we are talking about but the pixel size and how the signal is processed is quite different between the two. Larger pixels more better light capture=more detail. Local signal conversion vs remote = less noise.