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/
|