frank, It really has to do with the lack of a full frame sensor - so it is simply a cost problem. I can't justify paying $4000-$9000 to not have a magnification factor - usually 1.5 or so. That makes your nice, wide 20mm lens about a 30mm. Quite a change. A 14mm is only a 21mm. That is a big, heavy, expensive piece of glass to just get to a 20mm. That is the extent of my techno-babble concerning it.
Bruce Saturday, September 28, 2002, 4:50:31 PM, you wrote: ft> No doubt the response will require techno-babble which will fly way over my head, ft> but I'll ask anyway: Why is digital less-than-proficient at wide angles? Thanks ft> in advance. ft> regards, ft> frank ft> ps: I almost asked why digital "sucks", but I can't use that word anymore without ft> thinking of Wendy and her prior admonition on the mis-use of that word. You know, ft> of course Wendy, I'll take that one to my grave. You've had a positive life on the ft> life of one poor soul in this world. Just thought you'd want to know! <vbg> ft> -f >> On 28 Sep 2002 at 8:27, Bruce Dayton wrote: >> >> Currently, the digitals really suck at wide >> > angle, so that would be a place that you would still use your film >> > camera. >> >> >> -- ft> "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears ft> it is true." -J. Robert ft> Oppenheimer
