Contrast and even distortion is possible to fix by software, in the camera if the lens characteristics are stored there or in the lens CPU. Chromatic aberrations are more difficult to cope with, as well as the sensitivity to the incidence angle of the light on the sensor. Also, you can forget about resolutions better then the resolution of the resolution inherent to the sensor (taking the Bayer interpolation and Nyquist theorem into account).
So why not make such specialized lenses. From some of the characteristics of the limited lenses I´ve been wondering if they were not constructed having the MZ-D in mind....
DagT
På tirsdag, 10. juni 2003, kl. 17:50, skrev Peter Alling:
You're reaching, and you it's unbecoming. The argument about special digital lenses was disposed of long ago.
At 03:44 PM 6/10/03 +0200, you wrote:Jens wrote:
> Hi Pål
> Speaking about digital phoitogrphy - isn't the limits to the possible
> resolution set be the CCD, rather than by the lens?
> Jens
The final resolution is an interaction between medium (CCD or film) resolution and lens resolution. The lower resolution of the medium, the more imprortant the lens resolution as it costitutes more of the overall resolution. This is the main reason you get away with rotten lenses for medium and large format. Another issue is that images taken with not full frame DSLR using the 35mm suystem lenses needs to be enlarged more to reach the same final size as a 35mm image. This means that lens resolutiuon is being effectively reduced by a similar amount. In other words, lens quality is far more critical with eg. the *ist D than with a Pentax 35mm slr. This could also be a factor behind why Pentax would limit 20+ year old lenses on the *ist D. Perhaps they aren't realy suited for a DSLR?
Another matter is that there are probably other criterias in optical performance that is more important in a lens used for a CCD than for lens used with film.
Pål
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
