Digital Cameras depth of view

[az]

This still isn't a reason though, IMHO. Reviewers usually shoot resolution tests with small apertures, and customers would clearly welcome the option of having an additional aperture, even with not-perfect quality (or they wouldn't shoot digital, and certainly not all-in-ones - though the better of those are more than good enough for almost all people).

The Dimage 7/A lens performs best at F5.6 IIRC, BTW.

AZ

[Greebe]

I think Steve has hit it on the nailhead. The diffraction effect for such a small aperature would indeed cause a meriad of headaches for the lens designer. AZ this is no small feat to deal with.

Funny how I keep finding my old Nikon 35mm setup fits the bill dispite it's size/weight/film drawbacks.

I've got an f2.8-32 range on my 100-300mm telephoto, miles ahead of anything pricewise a digital can touch.

[VJ]

Steve indeed has a good point.

Another issue could be the light fall-off: imaging sensors requires the light to hit the sensor almost perpendicular. If you have very small f-numbers, this could become an issue for the pixels near the edge of the sensor.
(it could be solved by correcting the pixels in postprocessing, but this might introduce additional noise if the correction becomes too much)

[az]

These are all valid reasons but still, why have Fuji taken away the smallest aperture (for the same sensor size, and a lens that is at least similar to the old one), and why have Minolta managed to add a smaller aperture for the same lens and same sensor size?

AZ

[VJ]

Minolta tries to improve their equipment, whereas Fuji thinks nobody cares ?


Jörg

[The PIT]

Got to admit I wouldn't recommend the s7000 despite being fairly easy too use. Pictures tend to be too noisy even at iso of 200 so god knows what 800 is like.