I like it on the edge. And physics is physics. There will always be people not wanting to understand each other, but that is another thing.Sheesh - absolutes are always so dangerous, and absolute truths . . . doubly so!
I've used both in tandem, ever since the Kodak 14n appeared, and I'm very well aware that generalisations are just that, they aren't laws.
We can at least talk about "sharpness" in units possible to measure. Then some may prefer MTF50 values, other prefer to discuss esoteric details in MTF curves, some read USAF charts by experience - but surely "sharpness" can be measured and discussed from technical values. We just need to agree about the method.Hmmm, well, how do you measure 'sharpness'? - you can measure definition in terms of lpi, but sharpness isn't quite the same thing.
Forgive me Jonas (and for spelling your name Jones in a previous post . . . ). I think that so much of this is subjective, and what really is measurable is only measurable for a particular image in a particular situation (apart, of course, from the fov effect of cropped sensors. . . . not that 4/3 is cropped of course :ROTFL::ROTFL.
You called me Jones!! LOL, now I get upset!
regards,
/Jonas