> so that changing camera will mean also changing > lenses. Yet more digital expense and very short > termism? >
My comment was general. I am no expert and I dont even follow what is on the market. All I can say, having read the blurb on digital lenses on the internet and having hung out a few times with lens designers over the years, I got the very clear message that coverage/angle of view is the biggest restricting factor with regard to eliminating lens abberation. The other biggie is the requirement for a substantial lens to sensor distance to allow for mirror movement in SLR's. Of course - the design of zoom lenses involve these problems and more. Who knows - there may be more compelling reasons for keeping sensors small in the long term than there are for making them compatible with existing film hardware in that sense it could be that investment in regular equipment is short termist lens designers have so many great new technologies (super computer design, aspherics, new glasses, fancier coating techniques) but for example - shoot some tech pan with a 30 year old zeiss hologon 15mm and compare that with a contemporary SLR equivalent to see how (in that case) designing a lens which could almost touch the film (there was a special camera body which came with the lens) permitted amazing edge to edge quality and lack of distortion which is still hard to match. Make that lens today with all these new material/design enhancements and it would be 'way ahead' of everything else. Philip =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
