Quote Originally Posted by Claire Senft
Well, JJ since you are bound and determined to follow thru on this MTF discussion please identify the abberations that do not effect MTF.
Your question points directly to three parts of my position: first, MTF is not all that matters; second, obsessing on MTF is irrelevant because most lenses are adequate and most persons' technique won't exploit the potential of the lenses; third, persons so obsessed or deluded will, just as you have, pursue MTF benchracing issues regardless of the content of the post that set them off: you didn't read what I wrote. "Bound and determined" my butt. I wouldn't be wasting my time discussing this stuff if I weren't, FAPP, bedridden at the present. I wouldn't be as grumpy, either. I'd be out of here working.

There are no military resolution charts on gallery walls. Very few memorable pictures are technically perfect. Obsolete, horrific MTF quality lenses can be beautiful - their qualities speak to part of the photographic language. It is up to the photographer to use them, or not, as they please. There never will be an esthetic photodo, thank God.

(All that said, there is part of my effort, one minor project, that is concerned with ultra-high quality LF, but it's only a small part of my concerns and I will abandon it for meaningful work as appropriate.) Oh, and I know this is the RF forum. I use a LF RF camera, too... but some subject drift is acceptable.