why narrow apertures are bad!

Thanks for that list and the two links about diffraction. Very useful. I did notice that the second link has a calculator at the bottom and takes into consideration viewing distance and print size. So a large print at f16 viewed at 1ft away is diffraction limited, but not if viewed at 4+ feet away, as would be the norm.

Dave 2008 said:

... we have users who swear by infinity focusing ...

Click to expand...

That's as silly as swearing by hyperfocal shooting, Merklinger's method, or any other single technique. A smart photographer will use a technique that gets the shot, taking ito account its strengths and weaknesses.

WilbaW said:

Dave 2008 said:

... we have users who swear by infinity focusing ...

Click to expand...

That's as silly as swearing by hyperfocal shooting, Merklinger's
method, or any other single technique. A smart photographer will use
a technique that gets the shot, taking ito account its strengths and
weaknesses.

Click to expand...

--

you are the one who said "forget that" when someone asked about hyperfocal distance a week ago. Not me.

Roger Schliefert said:

An interesting point and often misunderstood.

According to digital picture these are the diffraction limited
apertures of the various Canon cameras.

Model - DLA
1000D - f/9.3
450D - f/8.4
400D - f/9.3
350D - f/10.4
300D - f/11.8
50D - f/7.6
40D - f/9.3
30D - f/10.3
20D - f/10.3
10D - f/11.8
5DII - f/10.3
5D - f/13.2
1DIII - f/11.4
1DIIN - f/12.7
1DII - f/12.7
1DsIII - f/10.3
1DsII - f/11.6

Click to expand...

Please forget that list IMMEDIATELY!!!!!

Just because that is the f stop at which diffraction THEORETICALLY starts to play a role, doesn't mean you can see it in real life!

In real life you can go a LOT further without anybody seeing any difference at 100% crop.

The best way to see how far you can go with your equipment is to simply TRY!

With my 100-400L with 500D diopter on a 400D body I often used F22 for macro shots.

F32 was clearly soft, F16 was razorsharp. F11 didn't give any improvement in sharpness.

F22 was a great compromise between maxium DOF and sharpness. Ideal for shooting bugs. (A dead wasp I found was a perfect test subject)

With my 50D I will probably see diffraction a bit earlier at 100% crop.

So for shots which don't fill the frame F22 probably isn't the best compromise anymore. I'll have to do a new test to see how much it matters.

... great as the Canon 50mm/1.8 so inexpensively and then charge considerably higher prices for mimimally better lenses. Companies should consider giving bodies away just to sell more lenses. I have already spent considerably more on my lenses than for the original body which I got w/no lens.

JMHO, of course..

Jim

regards

jim

The original poster presented a photo that certainly illustrates the negative impact of diffraction (and dirty hazy air) on an outdoor landscape image. The implication isn't entirely fair to small apertures, however, because a telephoto shot of a landscape with no picture element very close to the camera is not one in which you really need much DOF anyway. The small apertures are good for when the benefit of the added DOF outweighs the negatives of less overall sharpness. For macro (without focus stacking, I use f/16 often on my Rebel) and landscapes with very close foreground, F/8 just isn't going to do it.

Dave 2008 said:

WilbaW said:

Dave 2008 said:

... we have users who swear by infinity focusing ...

Click to expand...

That's as silly as swearing by hyperfocal shooting, Merklinger's
method, or any other single technique. A smart photographer will use
a technique that gets the shot, taking ito account its strengths and
weaknesses.

Click to expand...

you are the one who said "forget that" when someone asked about
hyperfocal distance a week ago. Not me.

Click to expand...

Yes, in the context of the question asked in that thread, I still believe that Merklinger offers a better solution to the OP's challenge (because Merklinger takes into account resolution - hyperfocal shooting [HFS] doesn't). If the OP in that thread had asked a different question, I might have answered that HFS is the best technique I know of to deal with that challenge. Like I said, it depends on what you're trying to do.

When people ask you to justify unreasonable claims, and offer alternative techniques, it doesn't mean that they blindly apply those techniques in all cases.

And please stop asserting that Merklinger advocates only focussing at infinity. You can't win a debate by lying.