Chuck wrote
> I can't argue with the results but keep in mind that you are playing a
> trade-off game of depth of field against resolution loss due to
> diffraction. The E-1 is diffraction limited at about f/9, higher res
> E-thingies at about f/6.3.
And Ken wrote
> Chuck, I beg to differ on the E-1's diffraction limits. The limit is
> not a brick wall,but a gradual loss of resolution. The E-1's AA filter is
> so blasted overspec that diffraction limitation is more of a philosphical
> debate than something that is ever seen--especially when you consider that
> we have good sharpening tools to fix much of it, anyway. But I do see
> evidence of it around the point you say, but it's almost always a
> non-issue.
I have been taking "landscape" photos at f/16 with the E-3 and Zuiko 14-54,
IS off and on a tripod. I an not happy about how sharp the results are.
Same applies to some recent close-up shots with this lens - the one that this
camera was fine-tuned for a few months ago at some expense to get more
accurate close focussing.
I've been doing some backup shots with the OM4T, but since I'm hundreds
of Kms from a processor it will be weeks before I see the results of film.
Is it likely that at f/16 on digital the image degradation will be easily
observable ? I think I see it when I look at the pixies using FastStone Image
viewer.
Can you say more about anti-aliassing, not only re the E-1, but also re the E-
3 since that's the one I use mostly these days?
And as a comment on another topic, I think that sometimes I *do* get
shutter lag; but least with the E-1. I used the E-1 at a childrens party
recently
and was delighted to rediscover how quiet the shutter system is and how
responsive the shutter release is.
Thanks
Brian Swale.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|