The standard for IQ evaluation in real world. MFT is superior to FF. Locked

From now on, everyone who wants to talk about equality, should see a effort first to back their claims. Make the prints in 20" (50cm) size and take them side by side and evaluate them from 60" (5ft/150cm) distance.

If wanted to do it digitally, the correct way is to downscale the files to 1920x1080 (max sizes) and then compare them on ipad or iphone (10" tablet or 5" phone screens) that is hold 11" (30cm) from the face.

No zooming, stepping closer, magnification glass, binoculars, telezooms or other similar assistances are allowed to be used in evaluation. Only eye glasses are allowed to be used if a person needs those in their daily life.

Who comes and say that they see a clear difference that will make or brake the format, are required to back up their claims by sharing the exact same files to everyone to be printed so anyone else can evaluate the photos scientifically (to confirm the conclusions).

WHY SO?

Because right now we are comparing few meter size prints that are "printed" equal to about 72 DPI.

And there is no any logical reason to trust anyone who say any "equal to X focal length / Y aperture" as they are not talking about the real way how photographs are viewed.

The reviewers should do the same. Otherwise their work to rank "that is better than the other in this feature" are non-sense because they have not put the difference in the context.

Each body or lens should be separately reviewed based different needs. Ie. a studio portrait photographer does not need CAF performance like sports photographer so it is non-sense to rank 11fps better than 4.5fps, more important is feature for face and eye focusing automatition.

The world has changed and so are requirements for the digital camera reviewers systems and image quality evaluations has not changed anywhere as we live same size homes as decades ago and we sell same size prints as decades ago and all our eye sights are getting worse by the age.