I meant to add that, if you don't have to ress-up then the display size
is small enough that the resolution lost to diffraction wasn't needed in
the first place.
Chuck Norcutt
Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Unsharp is unsharp whether by diffraction, depth of field or a small
> amount of motion blur. With the 5D on a tripod doing landscape I try to
> stay at f/11... but I might bend that for foreground depth of field.
> But macro as CH shows here and Moose showed with his well-dressed fly
> are different things and especially if one is on a tripod and the other
> is freehand. I assume the fly was shot freehand and there additional
> depth of field is probably required just to compensate for the swaying
> camera. CH's shots, on the other hand, appear to be done on a tripod
> and have the benefit of time and careful composition to position the in
> and out-of-focus areas. I don't think it's necessarily different
> strokes for different folks but different strokes for different situations.
>
> Finally, although the diffraction table for a 35mm size sensor shows
> that resolution at f/16 is diffraction limited to 7 megapixels, that's
> still more resolution than an E1. Furthermore, recalling that
> megapixels are an area measure and resolution is a linear measure the
> actual loss of resolution on a 5D between f/11 and f/16 is only about
> 25%. Good interpolation on ressing-up can probably hide a lot of that.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> C.H.Ling wrote:
>> For me, I prefer to shoot at larger aperture most of the time, I like the
>> feel more than everything in focus.
>>
>> Some shots from two days ago with 80/4, all life size F4.
>>
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/OM/OMC/80F4/80F4.html
>>
>> C.H.Ling
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Moose"
>>
>>> In an attempt to retain my sanity, I've only loosely followed this
>>> thread. In addition to the possibility that I might learn something
>>> simple that would help in the field, our collective tendency to veer off
>>> in new directions without changing the subject line means I might miss
>>> something else interesting. Not a complaint at all, by the way, as I'm
>>> as guilty as anyone and find it all oddly endearing.
>>>
>>> Anyway, it seem to me that one thing it all boils down to is that the
>>> only way to really know what's likely to happen is to use the equipment
>>> you have and learn what sort of images come out with various settings
>>> and situations.
>>>
>>> On my last little trip, I spent much of the time and many photos
>>> shooting at f16. Sure, I know, that's seriously diffraction limited
>>> according to some formula. Maybe AG's right, and weird DOF things that
>>> don't follow the simple lens calculations happen in zooms full of
>>> aspheric and special glass elements. Whatever, I'd been disappointed in
>>> the DOF I had been getting in some recent work, partly, perhaps
>>> semi-consciously, from leaning apertures toward open from the threads
>>> here about diffraction limits. So I spent a few days and a few hundred
>>> shots leaning the other way, toward f16.
>>>
>>> The results, from my perspective are better, with good sharpness and far
>>> fewer images poor because of shallow DOF. As far as I am concerned, any
>>> time I'm using that camera and lens, there's enough light and I'm not
>>> specifically looking to limit DOF, it's f11-f16 for me.
>>>
>>> Many of my Images As The Mood Strikes shots are f16, including the full
>>> pixel one I just posted. I dunno, perhaps I could have gotten a tiny bit
>>> more detail at a wider aperture, but would I have gotten the whole
>>> critter in focus? For me, for this subject and many of the thinks I
>>> photograph, DOF is more important.
>>>
>>> F16 and be there Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|