On Wed, October 14, 2009 16:22, Herschel wrote: > OMG... what a load of crap Um, can we maybe discuss this like civilized people? Instead of reacting to a simple statement of what's widely reported (note I don't claim it's TRUE) in all the print media and web sites by calling it "a load of crap"? If it's not true, despite being pretty much universally accepted, you're going to have to present evidence and make arguments, not just sling around insults. > As far as I know, "digital" lenses mostly are lower quality lenses with > an image circle only big enough to cover the smaller chips. Don't try to tell anybody using Nikon's 17-55/2.8 DX that it's a "lower quality lens"; they will laugh at you, probably not very politely. Or the 35/1.8 DX. Or Canon's EF-S macro lens. I won't for a moment disagree that the designation "digital" on lenses has been thrown around somewhat randomly and hasn't always meant anything, and that it has no very specific definition. However, I do think that as we've learned more about digital photography, we've found some issues with how image-forming light coming out a lens interacts with film vs. digital sensors, and that some changes to lenses and some changes to sensors (or the microlens arrays over the sensors) have been made to make things work better. These issues include how the sensor reacts to light at shallow angles (considerably differently from film), and the fact that the sensor is shiny and thus can make sharp reflections, in addition to the fact that many DSLR cameras use smaller-size sensors than 24x36mm -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
