>>3965644>>3965649>>3965694>>3965703>>3965795If microcontrast is just good contrast in high-frequency areas, why do the lens flat earthers insist that modern lenses have bad microcontrast? What property do 60-80s lenses have that 2010+ lenses don't? And why do they show small preview images to demonstrate the MC? Surely if the devil is in the details, low-res sample images would hide whatever is different.
>>3965814Could you explain what a good mtf test would be? I would have thought softness and microcontrast are mutually exclusive. Is there a specific band of frequencies in which the contrast is good (before it all blurs away) to make it a good MC lens?
