Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X

["Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr>]

Yes, I know.  So if it is that important, why aren't 24x36 lenses designed to
cover a much larger area than the film frame?  That would ensure that the entire
frame falls in the central portion of the lens field.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mikael Risedal" <risedal@hotmail.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 19:10
Subject: Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X


> A lens are sharper in the middle, I suggest that you go to        http://www
> Photodo.com
> MTF tests of lenses by Lars Kjellberg or read Norman Koren page
>             http://www.normankoren.com/
> Mikael Risedal
>
> >From: "Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr>
> >Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> >To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> >Subject: Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
> >Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:30:30 +0200
> >
> >Steve writes:
> >
> > > But you do have the advantage that the centre is
> > > invariably sharper, often much sharper, than the edge.
> >
> >If that is such an advantage, why hasn't anyone designed lenses for 24x36
> >that
> >cover a much larger area than the film frame?  The same logic would apply.
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>