Quote: when you consider the change in resolution in sensors between the lowely *istD series at 6 mP and the newest 16 mP camera, the change in sensor "pitch" so to speak, has gone from from 8 microns to about 5 microns
.
I'm still waiting for a few shots from a couple new lenses where one demonstrates the lack of resolution in the lens being more than that of the sensor.
Until we have an example, the whole concept of a sensor out resolving a lens is just a concept. Since no one knows if this concept is the result of some lab work somewhere or originated in some marketing department to talk people who buy new cameras in to buying new glass as well, especially relevant in the Pentax community where there is a lot of usable old glass.
It's only with actual photos to compare that a person can make up their mind and decide if this is even an issue for them.
It just seems to me that if the concept was real, someone somewhere would have presented some physical evidence. After all, photography is about producing images, not academic discussions about glass.
So, personally, I'm not entertaining any more discussions about lenses not having enough resolution for digital sensors without some kind of visual evidence. Preferably not visual evidence from one lens that's been knocked around in your camera bag for a few years.
I certainly believe that some lenses are sharper than others. That's not the issue. The issue is finding a lens that is good on film or low res digital, that isn't good on higher res digital, or even a lens that is good on a 6mp that isn't good on a 14 mp.
Any evidence at all will be accepted.
I have the old 18-55 from my *ist and the "new one" that came with my K-x, that's been "improved" for higher resolution... on my K20D I can't tell the difference, even though it's been stated, the old one wasn't good enough for the higher resolution sensors.
Someone prove this is an issue.
Until then.
No one has seen it.
You can't prove it exists.
It doesn't exist.