Rongnongno Loc: FL

I suggest you ignore the idiots as I do.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

You are, of course, correct. I let myself get baited by BS. It ends now.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

Amen to that! Let's get back to the topic.

"So, it is not the lens, it is the sensor..." in case anyone has forgotten!

tdekany Loc: Oregon

I posted my Flickr link above for you. Did you miss it? Just remember I don't claim to be good, and more importantly don't blame the equipment for MY lack of skills.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Takes one to know one doesn't it?

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Offer them here or don't. If you criticize what is offered here by another photographer, then offer here your counter.

It is not my job to go look for your proofs.

I mean. Get real. I now drop this discussion, since you are unable to pursue it with integrity.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Offer them where? In this thread? And how many? But why would I? Ron's signature says specifically not to post pictures in his threads. What difference would that make? Especially since you yourself told me to go look at your pictures elsewhere. You are not making much sense. I posted my link to over 15k pictures and you are telling me I have no integrity? Get real will you? Plus the thread was started by an incompetent photographer blaming the gear instead of admitting that it is HIM. Wasn't about my pictures.

I took the time to search for your picture. As I said I found one. I post a link to all my snapshots for you, are you really that lazy to click on a link?

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Apparently you're now ignoring just about everyone. Three daze ago, two pages ago, I asked you for a specific explanation of how you came to your conclusions. I asked this hoping for an answer, because I was hoping to use it to better understand why so many lenses, both film-era and current, don't provide the resolution required by my current-day Pentax Q-7, which seemingly has the same pixel density as does your mythical some-day 250mb camera.

I am still waiting.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Don't hold your breath.

By now Ron has figured out that his premise, as in most of the threads he starts, was based on a lack of understanding of the subject matter. He cannot defend his statement because there is no evidence to support it.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

and don't digital users just hate that?! however, since digital users are loath to actually print their output, they never experience the lack of image quality.
they also are under some strange illusion that the laws of optics can be manipulated. if so, they should start experimenting on their eyes, if so confident.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

"Loath" is a misleading word. In the daze of film, I shot mostly slide film; today, jpeg-on-computer is a similar concept, but just easier for me to get to since I don't have to drag out a projector and screen.
I have taken many thousands of pictures over the past 50 years; I have scanned just a fraction of the slides I took 1969-2006, and I'm already up to 3560 images scanned (and hopefully that count will be a couple more tomorrow). An album of 4x6 prints would not be that helpful(*) to me, and I've never owned a house with enough wall-space to hang that many in a larger format, so slides, now jpegs-on-computer, have turned out to meet my needs the best.

(*) many of my pictures are combining my two hobbies - railroading and photography. Many of the pictures I've taken over the years are "what station is here today?" or "how is this piece of equipment painted today"?". In that setting, sharpness is reasonably important, as is color rendition, but I need a good view to see those things. A small print is just not enough; I'm not sure that an 8x10 would even be enough; a projected image, or one on a screen I can zoom into, is exactly what I need.