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
