>Unsharpness due to camera shake increases with >magnification. >The "rule of thumb" seems to go back to the 1950's >and seems to be based on a 1/100 edge blur being acceptable in >a 10x8 inch print taken with a standard lens for the format of >a 1 foot wide format. >Half a century ago few people had anything other than a >standard lens, zoom lenses hardly existed, and film was not >good by modern standards. >Modern equipment is much better and can be enlarged much more >- and the 1/100 blur OK in a 10x8 print can easily become 1/15 >of an inch from 16 MP viewed at 200% on a monitor. >If your technique is reasonable you get sharp images from any >camera in a 10x8 inch print. >If you want to make a print after cropping a lot, or to view >at 200% (as you can from 16 MP) your technique needs to be >very good for camera shake not to show at large >magnifications.
This kind of clearly stated info is priceless. The paradigms have changed (I think, for the better). Looking at a box of Velvia with a 10x loupe was always exciting, but perhaps not as revealing as 100% of a 16mp sensor on a large monitor.
Interesting that the camera/lens often gets blamed for simply better recording what's actually been done by the photographer.