MP's...if less is more, than why do they add more?

Alex_Venom wrote in post #11847932
I think it's funny how some photographers take their own reality and assume it's everybody's reality as well.

That's call projection.

And what you're saying isn't much different that people saying you don't need this and that (video as of late). Canon knows how to make money and good cameras. I'm sure they will continue both.

tonylong wrote in post #11859302
Softness in an online image can result from various things, whether it's in the original image quality, software used in PP that maybe causes softness when downsizing without special techniques, or software that a Web host uses to upload and resize. I've seen plenty examples of all. I'm not in the habit of being ultra-critical of apparent softness in an uploaded image -- if the poster wants C&C you might ask about the softness or sometimes the poster will point to it and as for suggestions but I don't just assume that the poster took a bad shot.

It works both ways. Not only can people be unimpressed by soft images 1 MP in size or less on their monitors (which are only soft because of processing choices), but people are often overly impressed by small, sharp, images as well, which kind of concerns me, as people "WOW" lenses that really aren't being put to the test at all. A mediocre lens with a 2X TC is usually perfectly capable of a tack-sharp image at 600x400! So is a crop of half the original image dimensions, without the TC.