>>3997645>This is some heavy cope from a guy that lives in a world created by his own imagination.This is heavy cope from a guy who is too arrogant to admit he might not be as knowledgable as he thought he was.
>If even a cheap lens has enough resolution for a modern sensor, why do they look so much more blurry than good lenses? Define 'cheap lens', 'modern sensor', and 'resolution.' Are you looking for extinction resolution? You would be surprised how many consumer tier lenses, stopped down, can hit Nyquist center frame on even the highest pixel density ILCs. Are you looking for sharpness? You can differentiate that on a 6mp DSLR from 2003. Are you looking for a cheap lens that's not blurry? Plenty of cheap primes stopped down 1-2 stops from wide open are sharp as fuck. Putting higher resolution sensors behind them only makes the final result sharper.
>And why will both those lenses give almost identical pictures whether shot on 20mp or 60mp?LOL you've obviously never tried this. Attached pic shows a 1990s, bottom tier, consumer APS EF 22-55/4-5.6 lens shot wide open on a 20mp and a 50mp DSLR. It's an absolute shit lens meaning the test couldn't be more biased in your favor. A lens that you would absolutely insist 'caps' the camera sensor and should look the same at 12mp or 100mp. Yet putting 50mp behind it dramatically improves the result over 20mp.
See:
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_eos_5Ds_review.html>It's almost like resolution is 99% dictated by the lens and not the sensor eh buddy ;)It's almost like you are completely ignorant on the topic and have never even owned two cameras of differing resolution to see the effect that they have. Oh...wait...it's not almost like that, it IS that. When you are ready to say to yourself "I don't understand this like I thought I did", then you can scroll up, read, and learn.
