>>3926458>reiterating, if microcontrast was a real thing, it would be quantifiedIt is but those optics specialized don't call it microcontrast as it is an informal name, if you search for accutance or gradients you might find some.
>listing it proudly in their spec sheet line-upsWrong, many positive things are rarely shown in spec sheets, like barrel texture, focus ring texture and pattern, rear element glass sealing (to avoid vacuum effect) and so on. Same with bokeh characteristics, few mention it in real detail.
>lens manufacturers would fight over whoever has the biggest oneWrong again, they don't care because this is one of those aspects few understand. But if you really want an example, there's Nikon putting the 58mm f1.4 and the 105mm f1.4 years ago and nobody understanding why they went for "rendering", honestly a marketing word, rather than sharpness like Sigma and Zeiss were doing. Also Leica mentions it a lot with words like rendering and "character", again some ploys to play dumb with the userbase.
>find me an optical scientist or engineer who doesFind me an optical scientist, period, you probably don't know any because nobody cares about their names, they care about writings and details. Here's an explanation for you in pic related. Simply enough i think.
