--
If you avoided the diffraction, you have to resort to ND filters to manage a shot like the one you posted. For intentional motion blur, sometimes it is prefereable to trade off absolute sharpness for a better overall image. Tracking shots, helicopter blades, ect. In the case of landscapes (running water, but needs sharpness for a large print) the ND filter approach is recommended to keep the aperture in the f5.6-f8 range.
That is not diffraction light-spreading exceeding the dimensions of a 2x2 photo-site array going on. That is the Circle of Confusion diameter (15 Microns on the sensor surface for a viewing size of 8" x 10" at 25cm viewing distance) reducing in inverse proportion to enlargement, to a size smaller than the dimensions a 2x2 photo-site array. With 3.75 Micron photo-sites, that occurs at 7.5 Microns
First of all, diffraction affects all systems at the same DOF, so mFT suffers diffraction no more than any other format. Furthermore, smaller pixels do not result in greater diffraction -- that's another myth.
Is everyone here aware of diffraction when shooting with m4/3s at a small aperture. I don't know if diffraction has occured in my pic above or not. How to tell and are they any indications of the diffraction so that I can avoid in the future. Of course I'm looking for the sharpest possible. What would be the ideal aperture? f8? f11? or maybe m4/3 need not be that small. Maybe an f5.6 is sufficient. My lens used in the pancake 17mm f2.8.
I understand your statements (in a relative sense). Nevertheless, this is also your stated position:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=42043227
Consider two sensors, both the same size, and same relative strength AA filter, but one with more pixels than the other. Take a pic of the same scene from the same position with the same settings and same lens (e.g. 12-35 / 2.8 at 25mm f/5.6 1/200 ISO 200). Display the photos at the same size.
Well, that always sounds good, but while some people state that the degradation of resolution is of a gradual nature - but it seem spretty hard (for me) to envision this condition displayed below:
Which resolves more detail at any aperture? The EPL1 or the EM5? Which resolves more detail at any aperture, the 5D or the 5D2? Which resolves more detail at any aperture, the D200 or the D7000?Well, that always sounds good, but while some people state that the degradation of resolution is of a gradual nature - but it seem spretty hard (for me) to envision this condition displayed below:
Source: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/raylei.html
... as being anything other than very well upon its way towards the status of "unresolved" (and in a status of a halving of vertical and horizontal resolution). Better quadruple the pixel-density, then?
In the "f/32 on FF, f/22 on APS-C, or f/16 on mFT" case where all sesnors have the same pixel-density that makes sense from a standpoint that while there is more diffraction light-spreading on a per-pixel level, there are also more pixels on the FF sensor to compensate for that (per-pixel) loss. But, what about a case where the pixel-density increases on the APS-C sensor relative to the FF sensor, and increases on the MFT sensor relative to the APS-C sensor ? Where's the "magic" then?Which resolves more detail at any aperture? The EPL1 or the EM5? Which resolves more detail at any aperture, the 5D or the 5D2? Which resolves more detail at any aperture, the D200 or the D7000?Well, that always sounds good, but while some people state that the degradation of resolution is of a gradual nature - but it seem spretty hard (for me) to envision this condition displayed below:
Source: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/raylei.html
... as being anything other than very well upon its way towards the status of "unresolved" (and in a status of a halving of vertical and horizontal resolution). Better quadruple the pixel-density, then?
Now, if we are at f/32 on FF, f/22 on APS-C, or f/16 on mFT, then the difference in resolved detail is trivial. However, at wider apertures, the difference is significant.
However, in no case will the higher PD (pixel density) sensor resolve less, all else equal .
Let's say an mFT lens is twice as sharp as a FF lens to make up for the enlargement factor. Then, at the same DOF, an mFT sensor with more pixels than a FF sensor will resolve more detail than an FF sensor with fewer pixels.
Not more "magic" than FF, but more "magic" than an mFT camera whose sensor had fewer pixels (all else equal, of course).
Thxs Detail Man for the straightforward reply.
Well hello there Great B. Thxs for your reply. Its best suited for an FF user I think.First of all, diffraction affects all systems at the same DOF, so mFT suffers diffraction no more than any other format. Furthermore, smaller pixels do not result in greater diffraction -- that's another myth.
Is everyone here aware of diffraction when shooting with m4/3s at a small aperture. I don't know if diffraction has occured in my pic above or not. How to tell and are they any indications of the diffraction so that I can avoid in the future. Of course I'm looking for the sharpest possible. What would be the ideal aperture? f8? f11? or maybe m4/3 need not be that small. Maybe an f5.6 is sufficient. My lens used in the pancake 17mm f2.8.
OK, that out of the way. The "ideal aperture" is the one that produces the "best" photo.
If motion blur is not an issue (or even desirable), then the "ideal aperture" is what results in the static portions of the scene being their sharpest. Here, DOF is key. Portions of the scene outside the DOF are, by definition, not going to be sharp.
However, stopping down to get the whole scene within the DOF may result in noticable diffraction softening for the portions of the scene within the DOF. The ideal aperture represents the best balance of DOF and diffraction softening. On the other hand, if the whole of the scene is within the DOF, then stopping down only increases diffraction softening.
If you "need" to stop down to increase motion blur for creative effect, then you may wish to consider using a wider aperture and a CPL and/or an ND filter to reduce the light and increase the shutter speed.
If motion blur is an issue, then you have to balance the DOF with the noise. Stopping down will increase the DOF resulting in more of the photo being rendered sharply, but for a given shutter speed (to mitigate motion blur), this results in less light falling on the sensor and thus more noise. So, the competent photographer has to balance DOF with noise.
Hope this helps!
