"Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This red herring has been trotted out a lot. It's bogus. > in reponse to > Brian Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> who wrote: > > > >The issue raised explains it: CCD's apparently cope poorly with rays which > >strike them at many angles which are fully compatible with film. Using a > >smaller than full-frame CCD with conventional lenses avoids those paths > >nearer the edges of the image circle which strike the recording surface at > >more extreme angles. > Well, Mark, the problem with your assertion is that their are no full frame digital 35mm cameras to test your claim (unless the C***n Eos1D is already circulating - I don't know its release status or specs). The C****x hasn't hit the shops yet but I believe it's using a CMOS chip, a type which apparently are more receptive to oblique rays than are CCDs. What is available are some Kodak models built on N***n and C***n chassis that are almost full frame, and I've read first person reports confirming that WA fall-off is indeed a problem with them. You could be assuming (excuse me if you're not) that because 24mm x 36mm and larger chips are in service on medium format and bigger cameras then the doubts about WA use are dispelled. Problem with that conclusion is that those cameras have a hugely increased back-focus compared to 35mm cameras and AFAIK their imaging chips are all less than full format in their applications, so there's no way any parallel can be drawn. Regards, Anthony Farr - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
