It would be really helpful to the overall "atmosphere" of this forum if you refrained from importing to this forum the axe you and others grind obsessively about Hasselblad over at DP Review where you are a "Moderator," at least in name. I can and do ignore the endless and typically venomous/petty criticism of everything having to do with Hasslelblad over there, but I do not want to be subjected to it here. Techtalk has an exceptional level of experience and deep knowledge in many areas of digital imaging, presents his viewpoint in a calm, rational way, and offers up a measured viewpoint about the issues at hand. It's often an alternative viewpoint to the breathless and obsessive commentary about anything having to do with Hasselblad.Your reframing of your writing, with two quoted segments, the new underlining to emphasize the first point, your use of the word “added”, and the new explanation of the sequential logic structure is a rather transparent attempt to pretend you included the X2D only parenthetically.
This is what you actually wrote:
“it's a native lens designed by Hasselblad to work with the X1D and the X2D model which followed it.”
Seems like you’re the one rephrasing your words.
You comment as follows in response to Techtalk:
"Your reframing of your writing, with two quoted segments, the new underlining to emphasize the first point, your use of the word “added”, and the new explanation of the sequential logic structure is a rather transparent attempt to pretend you included the X2D only parenthetically."
I have no idea what you are trying to say. It is incomprehensible to me and adds nothing...zero... to the discourse about the basic issue at hand here.