It's been said many times on PDML that there's little advantage in using an extra-sharp lens unless you fix the camera to a tripod. I'm having difficulty following the math. Won't a sharper lens partially compensate for camera shake?
Here's what I mean: Suppose you have two lenses. Lens A resolves 100 lines per millimeter; lens B resolves 60 lpm. Now suppose that you shoot a series of 1/30-second handheld exposures with each lens. Your pictures are noticeably less sharp than they would have been if you had used a tripod. But aren't you still better off for having used a sharper lens? When your hand moves, isn't sharpness reduced by a fixed percentage--say, by 50% If so, 50 lpm (100/2) still beats 30 lpm (60/2). The sharper lens wins. Or does blurring work as an equalizer, permitting, in this case, say, no more than, say, 30 lpm, no matter how sharp a lens is used? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
