Weia: Where can I find more about diffraction limits and sensor size? Fourthirds, APSc and full frame. Especially in macro.
DOF is independant of sensor size or pixel density, so I wonder why diffraction effects should depend on sensor size. I need higher f-numbers because I mostly picture insects of 1-5 mm length. I've tested my Sigma apo 150 on my good old E3 and f/11 is mostly my choice. f/10 maybe is a little bit better, f/13 definitily is worse.
Where can I find more about diffraction limits and sensor size? Fourthirds, APSc and full frame. Especially in macro.
brumd: Great article! It really helps me appreciate the amount of work and care that is put in making these lenses, not only Sigma, but in general.
It would be nice to be able to compare this production process with the Leica factory and their "handmade lenses": http://blog.leica-camera.com/leica-news/the-leica-manufacturing-process/
In what ways do these production processes actually differ?
"It really helps me appreciate the amount of work and care that is put in making these lenses, not only Sigma, but in general."I was thinking the same. Every tiny part has been in someones hands, all lines and signs are printed or even drawn by hand...
They love optics above all, it seems. Nice read.
Distortion quite much, always the difficulty with these focal distances.
Weia: I left Photoshop since the cloud version is the only one. Bye bye.
I meant: I stopped wanting updates!
I left Photoshop since the cloud version is the only one. Bye bye.
The lenses are not the point I think. The M3 has some extra lenses, but for the rest DSLR and mirrorless have the same choice. So someone starting with choosing glass after that will not necessarily go for one or the other. An M3 with a 2.8/500 on a tripod for picturing birds can be a perfect choice, having a binocular in your hands and an eye on the tilted screen of the m3.
Good news, I have been waiting for about this for a special goal.
Peter Bendheim: Looks great - as an original M owner I think this will turn out to be an excellent go everywhere Canon, despite what all the haters say.
It's a pity that so many haters always spoil this forums...
Frank_BR: Moore's Law states that the integration of transistors in a monolithic circuit doubles every 18 months or so. Assuming that sensor resolution doubles every two years, and considering that today's state-of-the-art is 50MP, it can be predicted that the sensors will reach 3200MB in 12 years, ie, 2027, only five years after launching the LSST.
And the size of the pixels must not be too small, noise... So Moore's law has nothing to do with high quality photography.
The optics is one thing, the sensor another, but I think the software looking for changes every few days is far more important. The time lapse function so to say.
The best? Otus. Not in the list and therefore no vote.
The old 7-14 is hard to beat, so hope it is equal.
Weia: Why those DOS-computer resolutions, why not 720p and 1080p?And logic speeds like 500 or 1000 fps?
For time studies I would like logical frame rates. I use a simple Casio for athletic coaching, 120 fps mostly. Timing in 0.01 seconds would be nicer.
Why those DOS-computer resolutions, why not 720p and 1080p?And logic speeds like 500 or 1000 fps?
Hoping for an M2: APS-C, 24 megapixels, tiltable screen.
In picturing small animals the sensor size is always bigger than the object. The things that count are absolute maginifcation and absolute measure of the pixels. Availability of macro lenses is the important thing and so 4/3 is big enough.