>>3578658Hey buddy, quick question.
If you have a lens that resolves 10 lines/mm, will it be able to resolve more on a 1mm square sensor or a 10mm square sensor?
Well done, the larger sensor resolves 100 times as much detail.
>>3578668>microscopes need the sharpest images because it's small stuffJesus christ, go take a basic optics class.
>they create sharp images even non digitallyOh, show me a lens that creates digital. Images. Jesus fucking christ you're brain dead.
>>3578669>by increasing the pixel density you magnify imperfectionsOh, so you view images at different sizes depending on pixel density??? Protip, no you don't.
Do a little experiment, get an eyelash, drop it onto a sheet of a3 paper and take a photo of it so the paper fills the image. Now drop the eyelash on a piece of paper the size of a postage stamp and take a photo, again bound by the size of the paper.
Now view both images at the same size next to each other, which one is the eyelash more visible on? Huh, it's almost like the size of the medium (sensor) is the most important factor in showing/hiding imperfections (lens aberrations).
This is made completely apparent in the top link. Look at pic related, same scene, same lighting, same lens, same generation of sensor, same resolution of sensor, same processing; the only thing that changes is the sensor size.
