I don't really care a fig about all the blabla on lpm, real resolution, etc etc. That's engineer speak. I'm an engineer in the office. I'm a photographer at home, and to evalute photography I use my eyes.
DRM & Marshal,
C'mon guys! Who are you trying to kid? Have you ever met anyone who does NOT evaluate a photo using his/her eyes. There's no merit or advantage in being ignorant. Mind you, the manufacturers and advertisers just love people like you. You know enough to appreciate their products, but not enough to criticise their motives and the choices they're providing for you.
Right at the moment there's a huge quantity of 35mm glass around. I've got enough 35mm lenses to last me a lifetime. I'd rather not buy any more lenses, but the lens manufacturers would rather I did. I have a very practical interest in being aware, for example, of the aerial resolution capability of my lenses so, when promoters of a new format such as the 4/3rds make statements that 35mm lenses are reaching their limits in relation to the pixel sizes on the digital sensors, I am able to make an assessment as to whether or not such statements are claptrap. I believe such statements are claptrap, but I have an open mind and I'm always willing to listen to a reasoned argument if anyone would care to explain to me why, for example, a standard 35mm lens should not give similar performance to a standard 4x5 format lens if one adjusts the apertures for equivalent DOF (F11 for 50mm & F32 or F45 for 150mm) and provided the digital sensor in the 35mm camera has a sufficient number of noise-free pixels.[/font]