A stupid question: sharpness/resolution vs focus

Started Nov 27, 2005 | Discussions thread
OP Gediminas 8 Senior Member • Posts: 1,133
Re: A stupid question: sharpness/resolution vs focus

beerguy wrote:

I would never leave the tripod at home - no hand-held image is as
sharp as one shot using a good tripod, disregarding IS. It's also
tough to guarantee a straight horizon hand-held.

I partly agree on the horizon part. On the other hand, not all tripods are equipped with spirit levels, which means there's little or nothing to be gained in that respect from using one.

I find it difficult to believe the 10-22 is that bad-I've used it
and been extemely pleased with the images, and I tend to shoot at
at least f/8.

Where did I say that it's bad? I love mine:) I was only referring to the effect of diffraction on resolution (of any lens) - in the case of the 10-22, the effect has been found to surface from f8 upwards (see http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1022_3545/index.htm ).

A detailed explanation here:

http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/950/depth-of-field.html

Thanks for the link. However, it doesn't quite answer my question, which was: if diffraction deteriorates the sharpness of a lens, is there any point in using the lens for landscape work, say, at f16? The positive and negative effects of a stopped-down aperture would seem to cancel each other out.

-- hide signature --

Starting a gallery of my country:
http://www.pbase.com/lithuania/images01

 Gediminas 8's gear list:Gediminas 8's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Fujifilm X-E1 Samsung Galaxy S7 edge
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow