1/On spam....
Damn! Like first page... weird off-topic flaming. At least someone posted that link to "
dat" gorgeous and swe-e-e-t little baby (the
pre-production Sony FE 135mm f1.8 GM) with its verdict: "
if you are shooting a 90-megapixel camera, this lens will be the one that wrings the most detail out of that sensor" it's not such a waste of time.
2/ On motion blur
The following quote also made me think about on sensor stabilization:
...I own a 5DsR and have to shoot quite technically, off of a tripod, and then do a lot of extra postprocessing to get great quality images.
I wonder if in the speculated next iteration of 50MPish DSLR body (they are still going to make it a DSLR, right?) is going to come with
in(DSRL)camera sensor stabilization. Currently with 50MPs in order to ensure good quality results along with state of the art lense one also needs to consider controlled light or speed. There are fewer lenses that could accommodate perfect results with own in-lense stabilization.
3/ On lense sharpness
...I own a 5DsR and have to shoot quite technically, off of a tripod, and then do a lot of extra postprocessing to get great quality images.
As for the lense VS sensor resolution - let us not forget ISO, please. Sure - the current about 43 is about 43 (
perceptual resolution) and that is on few primes only. And yet due to the higher count of pixels as mentioned above to avoid motion blur I have to shoot higher speeds, which requires either more light or higher ISO. Noise reduction from 50MP easier than from 10 or 20MP. I am talking from my own experience. Especially and usually when the output final image is with lower resolution. Bare in mind that the talk is of
"8-9 out of 10 photos that are sharp" kind of experience. So to have the freedom to choose from wider variety. I don't go extreme on ISO for lack of DR, but on speed will always push as higher as possible to better my chances on big PXL bodies.