Diffraction Limit

Great Bustard wrote:
...

So what matters is the size of the airy disk that corresponds to a certain f-stop versus the size of the pixels relative to that airy disk.
Not the size of the pixels, but the size of the Airy Disk as a proportion of the sensor size. Smaller pixels, for a given sensor size, always resolve more detail at any given f-ratio.
That's only true as long as diffraction isn't spoiling things big time. More pixels on the same sensor size resolve more detail until the airy disk becomes so large that the number of pixels no longer matters. We see resolution curves for different megapixels on the same sensor size converge to the same numbers for the same f-stop when the f-number becomes large enough. So a 24MP full frame sensor will clearly outresolve a 12MP full frame sensor at f/11, it will be close at f/22 and very close to zero difference at f/32. When the airy disk is large enough adding more megapixels to the same sensor surface isn't helping any more. Fortunately for us that is typically at the very end of what a lens can be set to.
 
Detail Man wrote:
LTZ470 wrote:

Know a lot or think they "know" a lot? Love it when the school boys come out to play!

FZ200%20Diff-XL.jpg
The usefulness of the above "calculator" has been debunked a multitude of times on DPReview Forums. The most recent example of that was on this particular recent Open Talk thread here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3520761

... on which I posted this (if you really want to get into the numbers that actually matter):

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51858399

It is a mistake to assume that some given website (including "Cambridge In Color" and "Luminous Landscape" must sure define shining "absolute truth". In fact, there are certain posters on these (as well as the LL) forums who actually understand these subjects well, and know a lot more more about these subjects than the offerings of many, many web-sites and web-blogs.

Complicated subjects cannot be easily simplified - and it is thus a mistake to wrongly assume so.

It is possible to better understand these subjects - but it is necessary to make the (non-trivial) effort of reading and thinking about and trying to understand what these folks are actually talking about.

I have provided you with a huge amount of specific and accurate information in the last few days, and linked you to even more reliable information. What Anders and Joe are saying to you is not untrue (though I do indeed think that there are just a few things in Joe's method of explanation that are well served by some further surrounding facts being mentioned).

All in all, there is much to learn before one can even imagine to begin to "teach" others about complicated subjects. Humbling it can be. It has been for me. It likely is for any intelligent participant.

DM ... :P
On DP Review?...really DM?...are you also inebriated by the exuberance of your own verbosity?

Let's look at the other side of the equation:

It is a mistake to assume that some given website, including DPReview can define shining "absolute truth".

In fact, there are certain posters on DPReview are inebriated by the exuberance of their own verbosity as well...

Correct?...

I learn by "concrete proof in the pudding"...there is none for the FZ200 being diffraction limited at f/2.8...



--
--Really there is a God...and He loves you..
FlickR Photostream:
www.flickr.com/photos/46756347@N08/
Mr Ichiro Kitao, I support the call to upgrade the FZ50.
I will not only buy one but two no questions asked...
 
GB wrote:

In short, it is entirely possible for the FZ200 to be sharper at f/4 than it is at f/2.8, even though at f/2.8 it is already well within the realm of strong diffraction softening, and the lesser lens aberrations at f/4 may outweigh the increased diffraction softening.

Regardless, the effects of diffraction softening at f/2.8 on an FZ200 are identical to the effects of diffraction softening at f/8 on mFT and f/16 on FF, it's just that diffraction softening is one of many forms of blur.
The problem on m43 is similar to what you see on the FZ200. Very sharp primes are sharper at f/4 than f/5.6 already because of diffraction at f/5.6. Mediocre zoom lenses are sharper at f/8 than f/5.6 because they become more sharper by stopping down than they are becoming less sharp by diffraction. The optimum of sharpening by stopping down and softening due to diffraction is different for each lens.

The FZ200 can be sharper at f/4 than at f/2.8 but if it is it just means the lens isn't sharp enough to get the most out of the sensor.
 
Paul De Bra wrote:
Great Bustard wrote:
So what matters is the size of the airy disk that corresponds to a certain f-stop versus the size of the pixels relative to that airy disk.
Not the size of the pixels, but the size of the Airy Disk as a proportion of the sensor size. Smaller pixels, for a given sensor size, always resolve more detail at any given f-ratio.
That's only true as long as diffraction isn't spoiling things big time. More pixels on the same sensor size resolve more detail until the airy disk becomes so large that the number of pixels no longer matters. We see resolution curves for different megapixels on the same sensor size converge to the same numbers for the same f-stop when the f-number becomes large enough. So a 24MP full frame sensor will clearly outresolve a 12MP full frame sensor at f/11, it will be close at f/22 and very close to zero difference at f/32. When the airy disk is large enough adding more megapixels to the same sensor surface isn't helping any more. Fortunately for us that is typically at the very end of what a lens can be set to.
True, and this is why the "more pixels always means more detail" dissolves into irrelevant obscurity (in terms of the actual magnitude of "more"), when the extinction frequency of the (lens-system's) MTF cuts into the uppper spatial frequencies to the point where the ratio of "increased detail" asymptotically approaches unity (that is, insignificant amounts of difference).

My calculation in this post find that lens-system diffraction "extinction" (may) become a significant issue at around F=22 (for the E-M5), and around F=27 for the D800:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51858399

The largest "un-knownable" in the mix (in constructing such models) is the effective (and not necessarily itself linear) spatial frequency response of the de-mosaicing algorithm utilized.
 
Detail Man wrote:
LTZ470 wrote:

Know a lot or think they "know" a lot? Love it when the school boys come out to play!

FZ200%20Diff-XL.jpg
The usefulness of the above "calculator" has been debunked a multitude of times on DPReview Forums. The most recent example of that was on this particular recent Open Talk thread here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3520761

... on which I posted this (if you really want to get into the numbers that actually matter):

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51858399

It is a mistake to assume that some given website (including "Cambridge In Color" and "Luminous Landscape" must surely define shining "absolute truth". In fact, there are certain posters on these (as well as the LL) forums who actually understand these subjects well, and in fact know a lot more about these subjects than the offerings of many, many web-sites and web-blogs.

Complicated subjects cannot be easily simplified - and it is thus a mistake to wrongly assume so.

It is possible to better understand these subjects - but it is necessary to make the (non-trivial) effort of reading and thinking about and trying to understand what these folks are actually talking about.

I have myself provided you with a huge amount of specific and accurate information in the last few days, and linked you to even more reliable information. What Anders and Joe are saying to you is not untrue (though I do indeed think that there are just a few things in Joe's method of explanation that are well served by some further surrounding facts also being mentioned).

All in all, there is much to learn before one can even imagine to begin to "teach" others about complicated subjects. Humbling it can be. It has been for me. It likely is for any intelligent participant.
One of the most important aspects of learning, perhaps the most important of all, is to learn what it is worth paying attention to (and not) for the purpose of learning more. As an educator, I have long considered the stage where a person is capable of further learning without the aid of a designated teacher to be the ultimate objective of education. Consequently, I try to teach my students in such a way as to eventually make myself superfluous (at least in my capacity as their teacher). It gladdens my heart to see such a fine exposition of this (I am sure) shared philosophy of ours.

One of the things that sometimes makes me scared is when students start treating me as some kind of authority whose every word they will dutifully note no matter what. In such cases, I sometimes make a conscious effort to get them to challenge me in order to understand that they should never listen to me for whom I am (except, possibly, as a temporary short-cut) but only for what I can deliver in the way of valid arguments in support of my claims.
 
LTZ470 wrote:
Detail Man wrote:
LTZ470 wrote:

Know a lot or think they "know" a lot? Love it when the school boys come out to play!

FZ200%20Diff-XL.jpg
The usefulness of the above "calculator" has been debunked a multitude of times on DPReview Forums. The most recent example of that was on this particular recent Open Talk thread here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3520761

... on which I posted this (if you really want to get into the numbers that actually matter):

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51858399

It is a mistake to assume that some given website (including "Cambridge In Color" and "Luminous Landscape" must sure define shining "absolute truth". In fact, there are certain posters on these (as well as the LL) forums who actually understand these subjects well, and know a lot more more about these subjects than the offerings of many, many web-sites and web-blogs.

Complicated subjects cannot be easily simplified - and it is thus a mistake to wrongly assume so.

It is possible to better understand these subjects - but it is necessary to make the (non-trivial) effort of reading and thinking about and trying to understand what these folks are actually talking about.

I have provided you with a huge amount of specific and accurate information in the last few days, and linked you to even more reliable information. What Anders and Joe are saying to you is not untrue (though I do indeed think that there are just a few things in Joe's method of explanation that are well served by some further surrounding facts being mentioned).

All in all, there is much to learn before one can even imagine to begin to "teach" others about complicated subjects. Humbling it can be. It has been for me. It likely is for any intelligent participant.
On DP Review?...really DM?...are you also inebriated by the exuberance of your own verbosity?
The more such verbosities emerges from intelligent beings, the more interesting things may become. I have spent quite a bit of effort in sincerity attempting to provide you with relevant and important information about this (and other) subject(s). I genuinely did it for you, my friend.

I think that if you (may) consider me as a "showboat" instead, I will refrain from further efforts.
Let's look at the other side of the equation:

It is a mistake to assume that some given website, including DPReview can define shining "absolute truth".
What I said is that certain posters (not web-sites) have comprehensive and valuable understandings of certain subjects. In this, (a few of those people are) bobn2, Great Bustard, and Anders W. After many hours of studying and pondering some of these things over the last few months time, (even) I might be worth attempting to read and to listen to (?).
In fact, there are certain posters on DPReview are inebriated by the exuberance of their own verbosity as well...
There may be. Aren't we all at some times and places in our lives ?
Correct?...

I learn by "concrete proof in the pudding"...there is none for the FZ200 being diffraction limited at f/2.8...
Nobody declared that as "FZ200 truth". I told yout that DIWA Labs' testing of the DMC-FZ28 using DxOMark's testing equipment showed that to be true in the case of the FZ28's (18x zoom) lens.

.

I have never once steered you wrong, my firend, and I have spent a fair number of hours explaining my thoughts on many technical matters (in my best understanding) to you over the years. If those thoughts are too long and wordy for you to read, that's OK. I understand that.

However, if you want "facts" to be "proved" to you, it will likely require that you invest the effort to read the expressed thoughts of others that you may not instantly understand. Such is life. I usually don't criticize concepts and ideas that I do not feel that I understand the contents of. After all, how would I even "know" that something is "wrong" when I don't clearly understand the subjects being discussed ? The same principle applies regarding what may be "right". It is simply not possible to enagage in "critical thought prcodesses" otherwise.

The "proof of the pudding is in the eating". Eating implies digesting and metabolizing the materials consumed - and thus must transcend mere momentary mastications and spontaneous regurgitations.

Learning, the destroyer of arrogance, begets arrogance in fools; even as light, that illuminates the eye, makes owls blind.
- Panchatantra


DM ... :P
 
Last edited:
Paul De Bra wrote:
Great Bustard wrote:
...

So what matters is the size of the airy disk that corresponds to a certain f-stop versus the size of the pixels relative to that airy disk.
Not the size of the pixels, but the size of the Airy Disk as a proportion of the sensor size. Smaller pixels, for a given sensor size, always resolve more detail at any given f-ratio.
That's only true as long as diffraction isn't spoiling things big time. More pixels on the same sensor size resolve more detail until the airy disk becomes so large that the number of pixels no longer matters. We see resolution curves for different megapixels on the same sensor size converge to the same numbers for the same f-stop when the f-number becomes large enough. So a 24MP full frame sensor will clearly outresolve a 12MP full frame sensor at f/11, it will be close at f/22 and very close to zero difference at f/32. When the airy disk is large enough adding more megapixels to the same sensor surface isn't helping any more. Fortunately for us that is typically at the very end of what a lens can be set to.
Indeed. In the penultimate paragraph of the quoted section in my post, you may have read the following:

In other words, all systems will suffer the same amount of diffraction softening at the same DOF and display dimensions. However, the system that began with more resolution will always retain more resolution, but that resolution will asymptotically vanish as the DOF deepens.

In addition, in another post above, from the same link as the above quote:

However, the relationship between diffraction softening and pixel density is largely misunderstood. For a given sensor size and lens, more pixels always result in more detail. As we stop down and the DOF deepens, we reach a point where we begin to lose detail due to diffraction softening. As a consequence, photos made with more pixels will begin to lose their detail advantage earlier and quicker than images made with fewer pixels, but they will always retain more detail. Eventually, the additional detail afforded by the extra pixels becomes trivial (most certainly by f/32 on FF). See here for an excellent example of the effect of pixel size on diffraction softening.

In addition, from yet another post above:
  • There is no such thing as a "diffraction limit" except when the resolution falls to zero.
  • There is a point where diffraction softening becomes the dominant source of blur, and this point will vary from lens to lens, as well as where in the frame we are looking (the corners typically, but not always, lag about a stop behind the center for DSLR lenses).
  • All systems suffer the same diffraction softening at the same DOF.
  • More pixels, all else equal, will *always* resolve more detail.
  • All systems do not necessarily resolve equally at the same DOF, as diffraction is one of many sources of blur. However, as the DOF deepens, the resolution decreases, and the resolution differences between systems narrows, typically becoming trivial by f/16 on mFT (f/32 on FF and f/5.6 on an FZ200), regardless of how sharp the lens is or how many pixels the sensor has.
Gotta love copy and paste. ;-)
 
Last edited:
Paul De Bra wrote:
GB wrote:

In short, it is entirely possible for the FZ200 to be sharper at f/4 than it is at f/2.8, even though at f/2.8 it is already well within the realm of strong diffraction softening, and the lesser lens aberrations at f/4 may outweigh the increased diffraction softening.

Regardless, the effects of diffraction softening at f/2.8 on an FZ200 are identical to the effects of diffraction softening at f/8 on mFT and f/16 on FF, it's just that diffraction softening is one of many forms of blur.
The problem on m43 is similar to what you see on the FZ200. Very sharp primes are sharper at f/4 than f/5.6 already because of diffraction at f/5.6. Mediocre zoom lenses are sharper at f/8 than f/5.6 because they become more sharper by stopping down than they are becoming less sharp by diffraction. The optimum of sharpening by stopping down and softening due to diffraction is different for each lens.

The FZ200 can be sharper at f/4 than at f/2.8 but if it is it just means the lens isn't sharp enough to get the most out of the sensor.
Exactly correct.
 
Really, I don't care. In the highly unlikely event I need to shoot at f22, I'll simply accept the hit I take in terms of diffraction. As it stands, I really need to go beyond f12 (anything beyond that is probably because I'm too lazy to buy an ND filter), and the effects are minimal enough for me.
 
Anders W wrote:
Detail Man wrote:
LTZ470 wrote:

Know a lot or think they "know" a lot? Love it when the school boys come out to play!

FZ200%20Diff-XL.jpg
The usefulness of the above "calculator" has been debunked a multitude of times on DPReview Forums. The most recent example of that was on this particular recent Open Talk thread here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3520761

... on which I posted this (if you really want to get into the numbers that actually matter):

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51858399

It is a mistake to assume that some given website (including "Cambridge In Color" and "Luminous Landscape" must surely define shining "absolute truth". In fact, there are certain posters on these (as well as the LL) forums who actually understand these subjects well, and in fact know a lot more about these subjects than the offerings of many, many web-sites and web-blogs.

Complicated subjects cannot be easily simplified - and it is thus a mistake to wrongly assume so.

It is possible to better understand these subjects - but it is necessary to make the (non-trivial) effort of reading and thinking about and trying to understand what these folks are actually talking about.

I have myself provided you with a huge amount of specific and accurate information in the last few days, and linked you to even more reliable information. What Anders and Joe are saying to you is not untrue (though I do indeed think that there are just a few things in Joe's method of explanation that are well served by some further surrounding facts also being mentioned).

All in all, there is much to learn before one can even imagine to begin to "teach" others about complicated subjects. Humbling it can be. It has been for me. It likely is for any intelligent participant.
One of the most important aspects of learning, perhaps the most important of all, is to learn what it is worth paying attention to (and not) for the purpose of learning more. As an educator, I have long considered the stage where a person is capable of further learning without the aid of a designated teacher to be the ultimate objective of education. Consequently, I try to teach my students in such a way as to eventually make myself superfluous (at least in my capacity as their teacher). It gladdens my heart to see such a fine exposition of this (I am sure) shared philosophy of ours.

One of the things that sometimes makes me scared is when students start treating me as some kind of authority whose every word they will dutifully note no matter what. In such cases, I sometimes make a conscious effort to get them to challenge me in order to understand that they should never listen to me for whom I am (except, possibly, as a temporary short-cut) but only for what I can deliver in the way of valid arguments in support of my claims.
Well said, DM and Anders!

As an old f@rt learning how to take better pictures I found your contributions to this thread (and the locked one ) to be very instructive and helpful. So to you two, GB, PDB and others ... Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to share your expert knowledge with us. I suppose I should also thank the OP for prolonging the discussion. :-D

It is refreshing to see some disciplined discussions of complicated and difficult topics. Some time ago I became quite disinterested in this forum because of the high incidence of opinion being presented as (false) fact and the puerile ad hominem attacks. But then I started to be a bit more selective in what (and who) I read (and ignore) and now find great value in spending some time here.

Many thanks,

Tom
 
Great Bustard wrote:

Imagine that. I found it terribly curious that Steen felt it necessary to add that tidbit in, as it didn't really pertain to the situation at hand, except as an aside, when it was contained within the link I gave.
Just added a bit to what you said, what's wrong with that? Know that people can read all about it in your essay, but how likely is it that they actually click on your links and do that? Thought it was relevant when discussing at which f-stop the FZ200 is sharpest. Maybe the FZ200 actually is sharpest wide open at f/2.8 in the center, while the over-all sharpness is best at f/4 or so.
 
It's a nightmare reading through all of this and I'm not sure I'm cool on people knocking Airy disks so much (well, if that's what they are doing, with my Astronomical hat on I tend to see them a lot).

Luckily I like the unquoted content of your last post on this, although it does tend to some pointing out of fine details over what's useful in the real world, IMHO, that can perhaps be less helpful to people. Can I add some stuff (feel free to disagree, I learned the other day rushing something off before going out can go spectacularly wrong on me... and I'm due out the door in 4 mins and counting...)

There is no such thing as a "diffraction limit" except when the resolution falls to zero.
- well, yes that's true, except it is actually useful to have an idea where diffraction is going to really start killing the sharpness so worth remembering this so-called non-existent limit, while understanding it isn't one you can't bypass (at a cost). On m43 I tend to remember f8 is somewhere not to go below without thinking carefully, for example (I try to stick to f5.6 and up a lot of the time, but I have lenses that are really good at f4-f5.6). There might be diffraction at f2.8 but at that level it's more something for scientific argument than for photographers to worry about.


There is a point where diffraction softening becomes the dominant source of blur, and this point will vary from lens to lens, as well as where in the frame we are looking (the corners typically, but not always, lag about a stop behind the center for DSLR lenses).
- not arguing


All systems suffer the same diffraction softening at the same DOF.
- Okay, except other factors will affect how much it troubles you, so again more readers here will find it not so useful choosing whether to use a FF or m43 camera to shoot something.


More pixels, all else equal, will *always* resolve more detail.
- True, although a chunk of the time it will be to so small a degree you don't care, the rest of the system needs to be in the ball-park. The number of times a friend's D800 out-resolves my 5DmkII are less than you'd think as the pixel effect gets lost in other factors. (He has consumery long lenses, for example)


All systems do not necessarily resolve equally at the same DOF, as diffraction is one of many sources of blur. However, as the DOF deepens, the resolution decreases, and the resolution differences between systems narrows, typically becoming trivial by f/16 on mFT (f/32 on FF and f/5.6 on an FZ200), regardless of how sharp the lens is or how many pixels the sensor has.
- okay

Anyway, I should ask a question - are you unhappy about applying Airy disk maths to either a CoC for viewing a picture of size X at distance Y or using a CoC for the presumed resolution limit of a camera in the 2-3 pixel pitch range (depending on AA filters, de-Bayering algorithms, etc.)?

Oh, I should say the point being working out when you are likely to really start caring about diffraction effects, but I'll avoid the "L" word. Okay, re-reading that maybe I should have said "Limit" word... :-)

(I think it is something worth knowing, BTW.)
 
Anders W wrote:
LTZ470 wrote:

From a very credible source:

"Diffraction thus sets a fundamental resolution limit that is independent of the number of megapixels, or the size of the film format. It depends only on the f-number of your lens, and on the wavelength of light being imaged. "
You think this is a very credible source?

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Have a look here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51853899
It's correct so far though that it's the f-stop that determines the size of the 'blur circle' and therefore the theoretical max resolution measured in lp/mm on the sensor with a perfect lens on a sensor with an unlimited MP count. In that sense the diffraction is independent of the sensor size, but it also follows naturally that a larger sensor will have a higher potential resolution at e.g. f/4 than a smaller sensor, simply because it's larger (lp/mm x sensor height in mm = lp/ph).
 
Steen Bay wrote:
Anders W wrote:
LTZ470 wrote:

From a very credible source:

"Diffraction thus sets a fundamental resolution limit that is independent of the number of megapixels, or the size of the film format. It depends only on the f-number of your lens, and on the wavelength of light being imaged. "
You think this is a very credible source?

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Have a look here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51853899
It's correct so far though that it's the f-stop that determines the size of the 'blur circle' and therefore the theoretical max resolution measured in lp/mm on the sensor with a perfect lens on a sensor with an unlimited MP count. In that sense the diffraction is independent of the sensor size, but it also follows naturally that a larger sensor will have a higher potential resolution at e.g. f/4 than a smaller sensor, simply because it's larger (lp/mm x sensor height in mm = lp/ph).
Yes, but the qualification you made (which can also be expressed as a matter of magnification, the image from the smaller sensor has to be magnified more for the same final display size) is pretty important, wouldn't you say? And as you can see from the second of the two links I provided (if you hadn't seen it already), that's hardly the only problem with McHugh's presentation.
 
Dr_Jon wrote:

It's a nightmare reading through all of this and I'm not sure I'm cool on people knocking Airy disks so much (well, if that's what they are doing, with my Astronomical hat on I tend to see them a lot).

Luckily I like the unquoted content of your last post on this, although it does tend to some pointing out of fine details over what's useful in the real world, IMHO, that can perhaps be less helpful to people. Can I add some stuff (feel free to disagree, I learned the other day rushing something off before going out can go spectacularly wrong on me... and I'm due out the door in 4 mins and counting...)

There is no such thing as a "diffraction limit" except when the resolution falls to zero.
- well, yes that's true, except it is actually useful to have an idea where diffraction is going to really start killing the sharpness so worth remembering this so-called non-existent limit, while understanding it isn't one you can't bypass (at a cost). On m43 I tend to remember f8 is somewhere not to go below without thinking carefully, for example (I try to stick to f5.6 and up a lot of the time, but I have lenses that are really good at f4-f5.6). There might be diffraction at f2.8 but at that level it's more something for scientific argument than for photographers to worry about.
Hi Jon,

At F-Numbers higher than any F-Number setting that (may) result in a defined "peak" (relative maximum) in the manitude of the spacial frequency response (the "contrast" level of the MTF) - where the lens-system (itself) is referred to as being "diffraction limited" - the amount of futher MTF response "roll-off" where one's mind's eyes may make an aesthetic value-judgement of "un-sharpness" (?) is unclear even to ourselves.

Likely varies with viewing conditions, mood, not to mention the individual nature of the viewed image itself. (At least) one individual can perhaps eventually "iterate" towards what settings satisfy their own expectations.

Rather than beginning at an F-Number "sweet spot" of a "diffraction limited" range of a lens-systems F-Number adjustment - the tangible (albeit still "gradual") "damage" is going to occur when the MTF of the lens-system itself drops below (say) 10% Contrast, taking the rest of the system (the optical filter-stacks, photosite dimensions, and de-mosaicing) "down" by attenuating the highest values of the net composite system spatial frequency (MTF) response of the entire system (at the "front end" of the "signal path").

My estimates of the range of such critical Wavelength multpilied by F-Number products are here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51858399
There is a point where diffraction softening becomes the dominant source of blur, and this point will vary from lens to lens, as well as where in the frame we are looking (the corners typically, but not always, lag about a stop behind the center for DSLR lenses).
- not arguing

All systems suffer the same diffraction softening at the same DOF.
- Okay, except other factors will affect how much it troubles you, so again more readers here will find it not so useful choosing whether to use a FF or m43 camera to shoot something.

More pixels, all else equal, will *always* resolve more detail.
- True, although a chunk of the time it will be to so small a degree you don't care, the rest of the system needs to be in the ball-park. The number of times a friend's D800 out-resolves my 5DmkII are less than you'd think as the pixel effect gets lost in other factors. (He has consumery long lenses, for example)

All systems do not necessarily resolve equally at the same DOF, as diffraction is one of many sources of blur. However, as the DOF deepens, the resolution decreases, and the resolution differences between systems narrows, typically becoming trivial by f/16 on mFT (f/32 on FF and f/5.6 on an FZ200), regardless of how sharp the lens is or how many pixels the sensor has.
- okay

Anyway, I should ask a question - are you unhappy about applying Airy disk maths to either a CoC for viewing a picture of size X at distance Y or using a CoC for the presumed resolution limit of a camera in the 2-3 pixel pitch range (depending on AA filters, de-Bayering algorithms, etc.)?
Thinking in the spatial domain in terms of Airy disk nodes and photosite sizes does not really yield the kind of "intuitively obvious" visualizations that one might imagine to exist. Any focusing-error will have profound (and complicated) additional ("bandlimiting") effects on the lens-system MTF (over and above what we are already discussing).

It is much more useful to perform the analysis in the form of working with MTF (spatiall frequency) response-curves. This enables one to simply multiply together all of the (spatial frequency domain) individual MFTs (of the lens, the optical low-pass filter, and the photosite dimensions themselves). After that comes the significant effects of de-mosaicing algorithms, too.

Not unlike an audio system (where we look at the final "frequency spectrum" that the ear hears rather than laboriously chart the time-domain impulse-shapes). It's the same when we are talking about the "spatial frequency domain" (in imagery) as opposed to the "time domain" in the case of audio analysis. The "time domain" does not tell us very much, and it is infinitely more mathematically laborious to numerically analyze. The "frequency response" tells the story.
Oh, I should say the point being working out when you are likely to really start caring about diffraction effects, but I'll avoid the "L" word. Okay, re-reading that maybe I should have said "Limit" word... :-)

(I think it is something worth knowing, BTW.)
 
Last edited:
tinternaut wrote:

Really, I don't care. In the highly unlikely event I need to shoot at f22, I'll simply accept the hit I take in terms of diffraction. As it stands, I really need to go beyond f12 (anything beyond that is probably because I'm too lazy to buy an ND filter), and the effects are minimal enough for me.

--
Regards
J
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jasonhindleuk
Blog: http://jasonhindle.wordpress.com
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2264/2257681353_3e9d9ca12c.jpg
Photos: http://500px.com/JasonHindle
Gear in profile. Oh, and caveat moron.
BINGO!

Correct, completely irrelevant as the amount of photos shot above f/4 on a FZ200 are probably less than 1% of all the FZ200's that have been manufactured...

Don't know of anyone who prints larger than 8X10 from a Superzoom...do you?

Don't know of anyone who looks at a Superzoom photo at 100% for viewing purposes...except when PP'ing a photo in LR that would be the only time for me...

Same goes for Oly 75mm f/1.8 and folks shooting it above f/5.6...maybe 1% of all the photos? even less?

And the amount of folks that bought an Oly 75mm f/1.8 to shoot at f/8?...lol...thats the real joke...less than .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

"Hey man I'm ordering me a Oly 75mm"..."Cool, your going to really love it, mine is sharp at f/1.8"..."Yeah, thats awesome but I buying mine for landscapes to shoot at f/8"...LMBO...

So if you are printing above 8X10 with a Superzoom then diffraction softening/details will be a concern...otherwise we can all go back to sleep...

I actually thought we were talking about super critical issues concerning the end of the world as we know it...lol...

Irrelevance at it's best...

FZ200%20Diff%20Ext-X2.jpg




--
--Really there is a God...and He loves you..
FlickR Photostream:
www.flickr.com/photos/46756347@N08/
Mr Ichiro Kitao, I support the call to upgrade the FZ50.
I will not only buy one but two no questions asked...
 
LTZ470 wrote:

I learn by "concrete proof in the pudding"...there is none for the FZ200 being diffraction limited at f/2.8...
But if it was (for example in the center of the image), then that would actually be a good thing! If a lens is "diffraction limited" (has its peak resolution) wide open, then that just means that it's a very good lens without any significant aberrations, where the resolution mostly will be limited by the unavoidable diffraction.
 
Steen Bay wrote:
LTZ470 wrote:

I learn by "concrete proof in the pudding"...there is none for the FZ200 being diffraction limited at f/2.8...
But if it was (for example in the center of the image), then that would actually be a good thing! If a lens is "diffraction limited" (has its peak resolution) wide open, then that just means that it's a very good lens without any significant aberrations, where the resolution mostly will be limited by the unavoidable diffraction.
:-)
 
LTZ470 wrote:

From a very credible source:

"Diffraction thus sets a fundamental resolution limit that is independent of the number of megapixels, or the size of the film format. It depends only on the f-number of your lens, and on the wavelength of light being imaged. "
 
Steen Bay wrote:
LTZ470 wrote:

I learn by "concrete proof in the pudding"...there is none for the FZ200 being diffraction limited at f/2.8...
But if it was (for example in the center of the image), then that would actually be a good thing! If a lens is "diffraction limited" (has its peak resolution) wide open, then that just means that it's a very good lens without any significant aberrations, where the resolution mostly will be limited by the unavoidable diffraction.
IF or CONCRETE...I'll stick with concrete...and the fact that there is no concrete proof...
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top