The "film lenses suck for digital" syndrome was immediately apparent with the full-frame EOS-1ds too. One of the culprits is the bayer pixels disposition in the sensor, that makes it more sensitive to colour fringe towards the edges of the image. When the oblique lines of red or blue sensitive pixels align with the hard edges in the image, it effectively amplifies any colour aberration.
Servus, Alin Mark wrote: MR> In the simplest terms: The sensors of DSLRs are generally smaller than MR> full-frame 35mm format (commonly by a factor of 1.5 - hence the 1.5x MR> focal length "multiplication" effect). Thus you need to enlarge an image MR> 1.5 times as much for a given print size. Therefore your lens must have MR> 1.5 times higher resolution for equal quality at a given print size. MR> Apparently this has caught quite a few people by surprise: There have MR> been people who found that their "so-so" quality lenses that gave decent MR> (but not great) performance on their film cameras simply didn't cut it MR> on their DSLRs. The 1.5x greater enlargement necessary showed up the MR> deficiencies of the lenses that went unnoticed at the lesser MR> magnification necessary when making prints from film. MR> If your DSLR effectively multiplies your focal length by 1.5, it also MR> *divides* the lens' resolution by 1.5. So you'll want to use top-notch MR> lenses whenever possible. I think the 31mm f/1.8 Limited would make a MR> fine normal lens for the *ist-D, though!
