William Robb wrote: > I'd like to add that now lens designers have another medium to keep in mind > when they design optics, that being the computer monitor.
Of course, mostly because it's a powerful way of inspecting pictures. NOT because it can drive to grossly wrong information as recent discussion tries to suggest. Pictures looking perfect on screen can be so so when printed (the other way round is also true) for many different reasons I won't discuss here (mostly dealing with color balance, brigthness and contrast, due to unproper equipment setting). However, when comparing two similar pictures on a properly setup monitor+printer, the best one on screen is usually the best one on paper. > I suspect that lenses that do well there won't do so well on paper. Your suspect is legitimate, but I'm afraid it's pure speculation. Most important, it was not confirmed in practice. When comparing the *ist D to the S2 Pro, the best pictures as seen on screen were also the best when printed on A3+ paper, looking not only more detailed, but also more natural. Around A4, you'll still prefer the best pictures on screen, but also the worse among them could be acceptable. Below A4, you can hardly find any visible difference, because of the small format. Apart from good hopes and love for Pentax (which I also share with you), how can anybody think that a roughly pixelated curve can match better the analog look and look better on paper than a smooth one? That's complete nonsense to me. Dario Bonazza
