Thanks for the constructive comments, Moose. I will keep those in mind.
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
On 3/23/2016 3:35 PM, Moose wrote:
On 3/21/2016 7:57 AM, bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
...
With the DZ 50/2, f/5.6 is distinctly sharper than f/22, or so it seems.
Hand-held.
That will always be true for a 4/3 sensor. What about the three stops
in between those two?
On 3/23/2016 9:48 AM, Jim Nichols wrote:
After clicking "send", I looked again at the lens. This was actually
taken at f/16.
On 3/23/2016 11:45 AM, Jim Nichols wrote:
>> I pulled out my tripod to enable one more experiment with the
Leica-R 60mm Macro. This is one link from a costume bracelet. The
lesson learned is that 3-dimentional objects are difficult to get in
focus, even at f/22.
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." – Henri Cartier Bresson
Unless you agree with HC-B, you must eschew f22 for 4/3; diffraction
effects are simply too great.
IF you need lots of DoF, AND you have and know how to use a
deconvolution "sharpening" tool, BOTH pre and post downsampling, AND
you plan to display on the web or in modest size prints, f16 may give
good results.
f11 is often the most useful balance point between DoF and sharpness
for deep subjects. A good deconvolution tool is still pretty important.
f8 is as far as it is safe to go for most 4/3 uses, absent post
processing tools and skill.
Relatively deep DoF is no fix for poor placement of the plane of focus.
How do I know all this? I've made all the mistakes, many, many times,
and have seen the difference.
Focus stacking IS a solution for deep, 3D subjects, but is a pain
unless the camera does it for you. The Oly E-M1, E-M5 II and TG-3 & 4
will do it for you, with some variations. And you need software to do
the stacking for you in most cases.
Depth of 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/
|