>>3890334>Ive marked the Fuji 18mm f/2 performance in green.You literally cannot compare optical limits' lens test results across different sensors, much less formats. It's highlighted at the top of the fucking page. That's why they mark "good", "very good", etc. to the side.
And no, without intimate knowledge of the two sensors in question and complex mathematical modeling, you cannot eye ball it or make a guess. To know how two lenses compare you would have to test them on the SAME sensor, or on an optical bench like lensrentals.
>>3890356>it doesn’t matter if it’s 16mp vs 24mp, it’s a small difference, and that only affects peak resolution, No, it affects the entire system MTF curve and is one of the reasons why you can't compare their test results across sensors. Even with a shit lens in the corners sensor sampling frequency makes a difference.
>And that is also another point, if you’re caring about sharpness, then you should be matching a high res sensor to a sharp lens. You’re wasting your time if you’re concerned with or want the sharpest thing available on APSC. High resolution does improve sharpness, as does a larger format. But that's a far cry from claiming that APS-C can't be sharp.
>>3890350>>(not lpmm, that's lines per mm, not line pairs, you fucking retard).>Unfortunately they use the terminology interchangeably on different blog posts, which is a problem. I contend they actually mean line pairs per mm. In "More Ultra High-Resolution MTF Experiments" they say>>So we checked some new lenses all the way up to 240 lp/mm, something sufficient to make a 200 megapixel FF camera worthwhile.>240 lines per mm only equals 50mp. But 240 line PAIRS per mm equals 200mp.It looks like they mean line pairs per mm:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2009/06/have-you-seen-my-acutance/>(In case you’re curious, the terms ‘line pair’ and ‘line’ are used interchangeably for this purpose.) 