>>4121088Yes I do, hylic. Do you even take artistically significant photos?
>Beep boop how do you not care about the definition of a human hair at 400% crop are you even a photographer *modem noises*Sharpness needs beyond what the average OEM lens achieved in the early 2000s are determined by printing needs. It is purely technical and irrelevant to everything BUT printing. For print sizes not measured in feet and viewing distances not measured in inches, a "WORSE!" lens may actually be better because its optical flaws can be married to artistic intent to create something unknown to the NPC:
"Character"
>but surely, you can recreate that in photoshopAnd yet you never do and just go on to post clinically sterile sensor readout ID 86a5fe4-alpha
>hello. fellow. humans. i observed this. behold. the capabilities. of my sensor. and. optical. device. you can see. every. atom. BEEEEEEEEEEEP.Enjoy your wedding photog gearwank lens. The rest of us will continue making art.
