of course you can tell the difference between a canon and an A22. In the review Michael did state that on an A3 print you see a difference. This is interesting to me, I was wondering if he did (or anyone else) has done a comparison with actual prints.
Well, I cant really imagine that anyone is going to shell out $44,000 just to get a tiny bit more smoothness or shadow detail in their A3 prints. After all, my calculations show that you only need 20 MP to print at A3 using 360 ppi with no printer re-sampling at all. And although higher resolution files might possibly show a bit better tonal transition or slightly less digital artefacting, the fact remains that an 80 MP back is chucking away a lot of the detail it has captured if you are only printing to A3.
So it might be rather more interesting (and relevant) to consider what an 80 MP back might be really useful
for. How about (and you are welcome to add to this)
Really large non-stitched exhibition prints.
Aerial photography (hand-held obliques).
Product photography on a tech camera (fabrics, jewellery, etc).
Rectified building recording.
Work which requires very precise retouch as part of post-prod.
Artwork and copy camera work where exact reproduction of fine detail is crucial.
Because, lets face it, there are not going to be too many people using one of these for their holiday snaps