copidosoma

People have to find some way to justify their choices. Personally, I've shot enough film to know that I capture much more detail in my digital images than I ever did with 35mm film. Add to that the issue of grain/noise (1600 asa film is brutal) and the many (MANY) conveniences of digital and I'm very happy with never shooting film again. People can justify it with their lpm measurements all they want. The results are all that matter to me. I'm sure that typewriters are capable of rendering type "better" (subjective) than a computer is. Doesn't make me want to use one though.

Kind of unfair with a model like that But, yeah, Acros is pretty awesome.

I agree. I didn't own the XT-1 but I have to say, the XT-2 is really an amazing piece of kit. Very, very happy with it so far.

It is basically an interference pattern. Wikipedia has a decent explanation of it (with formulas fir extra fun). Typically, you can reduce/eliminate it by slight changes to your position from the subject but sometimes it is pretty persistent. I think there are plugins to reduce it but as you would imagine, they can be pretty heavy handed and you lose alot of detail. Best to avoid it. Vidalgo, Honestly, I don't really see it in the rock shot. Or at least it isn't something that couldn't be confused/passed off for natural variance in the rock texture and color. But, I imagine it can happen with fine details of all sorts, it is just alot easier with parallel lines which interfere easier. The skin example is not as common in my experience but makes sense. If you look at your skin (particularly guy's skin and particularly on the hands) you have pretty visible lines. Definitely a bigger problem in fashion work where you are always dealing with fabric. It can totally destroy a good bird shot too.

That is color moire. One of the reasons some cameras have low pass filters is to remove that effect. It can occur with subjects with fine parallel lines (like fabric and bird feathers for example).