On 28/9/06, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed: >Your experience might differ, but the sentence is not meaningless.
Yes it is. Let's take a look at it in detail. >> I've yet to see a wide-angle shot taken with >> a "FF" sensor that doesn't have soft or dark edges and corners. Right, I have some questions. First, just because John [C] has yet to see a wide-angle shot taken with a 'FF' sensor that doesn't have soft or dark edges and corners, does that mean that *all* wide-angle shots taken with a 'FF' sensor has soft or dark edges and corners ?? Because I have seen wide-angle shots taken with a 'FF' sensor that certainly are not soft or dark on the edges and corners. So who is right? Hence the statement is meaningless. Has the omnipresent Mr C actually compared all possible combinations of 'FF' sensors and wide-angle lenses, at different apertures and different ISO settings etc etc ? Do you realise how many combinations that is? And if he has, under what circumstances? The sentence is as meaningless as: 'Christ the Lord has risen' 'You get a better hit with cocaine' 'You're safer with a Smith and Wesson' ***however*** here is an example of the opposite: 'You are statistically less like to get pregnant if you use contraception'. (Just trying to think if I can work in any more stereotypes here....) >However I am a little surprised by it. If the corners are soft/dark on >digital, they would be on film too. Not necessarily. I believe it's to do with the angles of incidence on a FF sensor. Cheap lenses cause some problems in this area. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
