You said 12MP needs a heftier lens. I said not if you downscale it in order to compare it to 4MP.
Sure, and if you read what I'm writing, you'll see that that's pretty much what I am saying, I was careful to point out that you do get more details, but that you need a heftier lens to actually deliver those details. I've not said that the 4mp sensor will in any way, shape or form deliver more detail than a 12mp sensor, so please drop it.
You should also consider that the noise in a higher resolution picture is smaller as a cause of the pixels being smaller thus actually blending in better once downscaled.
Yes, unless the pixels are so small that the noise gets more pronounced.
I guess this a derivation of your statement that smaller pixels are noisier.
Let me try to explain this once and for all.
People say a larger pixel is better because of it's signal to noise ratio and normally explain it by saying "a bigger bucket catches more light".
Here is the thing, a big bucket takes up more space than a small one. Where you could fit one big bucket you may be able to fit 4 small ones and take up the exact same amount of light per amount of surface used.
Now, imagine you weigh those buckets. Is one measurement going to be more accurate than dividing the water into 4 buckets and measuring each one of them separately? Make your own conclusions.
If you believe smaller pixels affect dynamic range for a reason other than noise, please explain.
Well, looking away from the water in buckets example, which I don't really think is that relevant, I would like you to explain how smaller pixels would not lead to less dynamic range. Thing is, we're talking seriously small engineering, and the larger you make the well that capture the light, the easier it gets to engineer their ability to not only capture the light, but read it properly. In theory, the size of the pixels should not play any part, but in practice, we're talking about practical technology, larger is easier to engineer, simple as that.
Let's take your argument further, do you think there's any reason to limit the numbers of megapixels of any sensor? If the size of the pixel wells doesn't matter (I'm sorry if that's not what you're saying, I might have misunderstood you), then why not go for 50 megapixel APS-C cameras right away?
Exaggerating to empathize your point is a strawman fallacy. I will not refrain from pointing out your failure to argument yourself in a logical way because if I didn't this discussion would be nonsense. You should learn how to express your arguments logically.
It is a straw man if aimed specificly at a specific argument, which it was not. And listen, mate, I've moderated discussion boards for years, and I have to say that I think you are getting quite close to a personal attack, which I believe is frowned upon.
I exagerated to emphesize a point, that's it, please drop it, I do not appreciate being treated like a dumbass.
The problem is that you then humiliate people who prefer higher MP cameras by saying (figuratively) they want to print billboards, something surprisingly dumb as it's not profitable.
In essence you say that low MP cameras are ok for everyone except dumb people who want to print billboards.
No, I don't. You should be very careful to take an argument out of context, not to mention that it's funny getting that from someone who throws around claims of being a victim of a strawman, but I digress. If there's one thing I've learned from years of experience debating with people who offer retorical resistance like you wouldn't believe, is to make sure I understand what people are saying before I get mad and red-faced.
I am not out to humiliate anyone, I am not out to be hostile, I am not out to make fun of anyone. What I am saying is that if you print big, you are better suited with more detail, but many people may not need it. I for one don't, but your milage may vary. There's many people who wouldn't need more than 4 megapixels, even for professional work. You'd be amazed how little difference is between 4 and 12 megapixels for a two page spread on ie. an offset printed paper, I've printed 8 megapixel files at 30x20 inches, which look great - really great.
If you want to print big, A3, 4mp is on the border, but it'll probably work okay.
What I do find curious is how you take this so personal, and if we are to talk about ridicule, I think you're bordering on ridiculing those who are fine with just 4 megapixels. Just my impression, that might not be your intention.
These quotes from your previous post might of confused me:
-That's me. It may not be you
I was not referencing anyone in particular, I was talking to the generic person, thinking out loud, in the same way you might say "I like pasta, you may not" during a speech.
-Wanna print billboards? Okay, given that you do
-you'll probably want a digital medium format
This last thing should have hinted at something, the hinting at medium format gear.
In other words - I'm referring to professionals who shoot professional photos for ADVERTISING BILLBOARDS.
Let me give you a piece of advice, if you're unclear about what you think someone meant, don't assume, just ask for clarification.