On 5/11/2016 5:13 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
Since I am the diffraction complainer I must admit that I often now follow the Moose's advice and shoot at f/11
although f/9 used to be my limit. I also like the 12-50mm lens and it's macro mode.
But... the Moose must have been in need of some sleep at 1:17am when he suggested that f/11 vs f/8 would not only have
given you greater DoF but also allow a faster shutter speed.
Oops!
Or maybe the E-M5 Mk II has some nifty tricks up its sleeve.
It does, but not that one. :-)
BTW, my DoF calculator set at a modest CoC for 4/3 (.0167 or 60 lines/mm) says the 12-50 in macro mode (fixed 43mm)
and focused at 300mm (a bit shy of 1 foot) has DoF range (rounded to the nearest mm)
@ f/8 - 295-306 mm
@ f/11 - 293-308 mm
I can never figure out what this stuff means. It's all predicated on display resolution, display size, viewing distance
and an assumption, perhaps unstated, about visual acuity. If I view it large on a big screen, I will perceive a
different DoF than someone with less visual acuity, a smaller screen, and/or less resolution.
Then, in today's world, we mostly have AA filters and demosaicing of RGB filtered sensors going in one direction and
often deconvolution software going in the other. How do the calculations, derived originally from having lots of people
look at and rate lots of B&W prints, relate to the viewing experience?
The 11 to 15 mm you present seem to me, based on experience with shooting thousands of flowers, to be at least a little
too tight. My choice of f10-11 is based very simply on endless images, often with aperture bracketing. I use what I've
found to work for me.
But then, I look at them mostly on screen or an 8x10 book page, and they've been through LCE and deconvolution
'sharpening'.
What's It All About, Moosie
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
|