On Sat, Mar 09, 2002 at 05:58:10PM -0600, Dean C. Hansen wrote:
> Hello OM'ers,
>
Whatever, I took a series
> of shots of the same region on a butterfly wing, using a series of
> f-stops: f2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, and 8.
> The results at f2 were really pretty good. At f2.8, depth of field
> increased slightly, but my subjective evaluation of resolution was that
> it did not change. At f4, however, wow! Image quality took a real
> nose-dive. This deterioration continued to increase at f5.6 and f8. At
> f8, I was back to the results of my first attempts: really soft images,
> as though my plane of focus was above or below the subject. But it
> wasn't. The sculpturing on the individual scales was easy to compare in
> the different prints, and the winner (with no hanging chards or possible
> non-payer) was clearly f2.8. This is what Frieder and Chris predicted.
>
Wow, I didn`t expect such a hard division. The writer of my book explicit
encouraged to give smaller appertures a try. Because scientific
calculations shouldn`t be hard limits for creative photography.
Anyway, this really demonstrates why Olympus replaced the old
3.5/20mm Macro with a new fast F2-version.
Frieder Faig
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|