Reading mode: Light Dark

What's the point to have a ML with only big lenses ?

Go to last post
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Hasa said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Hasa said:
ZodiacPhoto said:
For my real needs (landscapes mostly), I close the lens to f/8 - f/16, and at these apertures those simple lenses become nearly perfect from corner to corner!
Click to expand...
Splitting hairs maybe but diffraction sets in at F13 on a 50 mm and is significant at F16.
Click to expand...
Actually, diffraction sets in a the widest aperture on any lens. Its effect is minor compared to aberrations at wider apertures but is always there. The point at which the effect of diffraction becomes an important factor depends on many things - there is no hard and fast f-stop at which it becomes significant.
Click to expand...
The hard and fast rule is that diffraction becomes more important as you close the diaphragm.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I said ...
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Maybe you can show me a lens where it does not happen or the opposite is true? It would be interesting.
Click to expand...
Of course I can't - to repeat what I wrote above "diffraction sets in a the widest aperture on any lens".

Diffraction is an effect caused by the edges of apertures; the smaller the aperture the greater the effect. So a perfectly corrected lens would have its peak resolution at maximum aperture. However, all lenses also suffer from aberrations of various types caused b the curvature of the glass. Curvature is steepest at the edges of the lens so aberrations are worst wide open.

The result is typically what these charts show - resolution wide open is reduced by aberrations and is (relatively) low; the effect of diffraction is tiny wide open and has negligible effect. On first stopping down the effect of aberrations reduces while the effect of diffraction is still small so resolution improves; but on stopping down further diffraction gets progressively stronger and resolution falls away.
Gerry Winterbourne said:
What surprised me was that diffraction sets in so early while stopping down
Click to expand...
As I said, it doesn't "cut in" there. The better corrected a lens is the less effect aberrations have so the effect of diffraction jut becomes visible earlier.
Gerry Winterbourne said:
and for this particular nice 55mm F1.8 Sony/Zeiss lens you will see decreasing sharpness in the middle already past F5.6, so good luck getting sharp images with that 50mm @ F16.
Click to expand...
Red Holger's post about that https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61557269
Click to expand...
Grteat news for macro shooting, please point me to a link where I can get the deconvolution!
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
In the same line of facts I tend to shoot my Laowa 12mm @ F8 to get the best obtainable edge-to-edge sharpness for that particular lens.

Some F1.4 lenses will actually reach peak sharpness across the image @F4.

My Tamron 45mm F1.8 displays a small drop past F8 and a marked drop in sharpness past F11. Accordingly I should do some focus stacking if getting everything in focus is my objective for a landscape shot.

d3c26391273b43ab9af6d1033db07d66.jpg.gif


f0c8a952a1fc4412a0b5d00d546e6125.jpg.gif
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


--
Smile and the world smiles back!
 
mwyyc said:
scrup said:
Size doesn't matter for some, it's all about the evf and live view and the benefits that come with it. There are tradeoffs for mirrorless and dslrs, great thing is the choice we have.
Click to expand...
And the truly silent shooting capabilities. Just wait until wedding officiants and event organizers learn en masse about the this feature, and start requiring that hired pros use only mirrorless.

It's also going to really date movies and TV shows when mirrorless is the norm in journalism. All those dramatic scenes of some politician at a press conference while mirrors slap and flashes flash are going to see so quaint and old-fashioned, when journalists are shooting mirrorless-exclusively at ISO12800+ a few years down the road.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they will include a sound track {switchable} of the mirror slap and film advance to impress the subjects or other observers. Like some high performance cars have a switchable exhaust note. And some electric cars have a speaker to emit a sound to let people {like blind people} that the car is coming.😀
 
Last edited:
Holger Bargen said:
tassienick said:
Holger Bargen said:
MILC may help you to leave the field with better JPGs - but if high end is your aim you will hardly use JPG and neglect the the options RAW give to you.

Of course I can shoot RAW with MILC cameras - but all the information you have in the display and that may distraction from your object and the true aim of your photography is useless if you shoot RAW and your general settings for a location were checked for a few test shoots at the camera monitor.
Click to expand...
What are you even talking about? Countless mirrorless shooters use RAW exclusively, and to great effect. Have you ever actually shot RAW on a properly set up mirrorless body?
Click to expand...
If you have a histogram in your EVF - is it based on JPG or based on RAW?
Click to expand...
JPEG. Which is why I said 'a properly set up mirrorless body'. If you're a RAW shooter, custom set the jpeg processing to whatever you want your RAWs to look like (ie. low contrast, low saturation etc.) and it's going to give you a pretty good indication of the bulk of the RAW file. Learn your camera and you'll soon have a decent idea how much additional head room you'll have to work with in post.
Holger Bargen said:
Is it greyscales only or do you have the triple colour chanel information?
Click to expand...
Nope, just greyscale. If you want to check individual colour channels all the info is there in image replay.

It's a helpful guide, nothing more, nothing less. But your claim of it being 'almost useless' is just plain wrong.
 
Hasa said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Hasa said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Hasa said:
ZodiacPhoto said:
For my real needs (landscapes mostly), I close the lens to f/8 - f/16, and at these apertures those simple lenses become nearly perfect from corner to corner!
Click to expand...
Splitting hairs maybe but diffraction sets in at F13 on a 50 mm and is significant at F16.
Click to expand...
Actually, diffraction sets in a the widest aperture on any lens. Its effect is minor compared to aberrations at wider apertures but is always there. The point at which the effect of diffraction becomes an important factor depends on many things - there is no hard and fast f-stop at which it becomes significant.
Click to expand...
The hard and fast rule is that diffraction becomes more important as you close the diaphragm.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I said ...
Hasa said:
Maybe you can show me a lens where it does not happen or the opposite is true? It would be interesting.
Click to expand...
Of course I can't - to repeat what I wrote above "diffraction sets in a the widest aperture on any lens".

Diffraction is an effect caused by the edges of apertures; the smaller the aperture the greater the effect. So a perfectly corrected lens would have its peak resolution at maximum aperture. However, all lenses also suffer from aberrations of various types caused b the curvature of the glass. Curvature is steepest at the edges of the lens so aberrations are worst wide open.

The result is typically what these charts show - resolution wide open is reduced by aberrations and is (relatively) low; the effect of diffraction is tiny wide open and has negligible effect. On first stopping down the effect of aberrations reduces while the effect of diffraction is still small so resolution improves; but on stopping down further diffraction gets progressively stronger and resolution falls away.
Hasa said:
What surprised me was that diffraction sets in so early while stopping down
Click to expand...
As I said, it doesn't "cut in" there. The better corrected a lens is the less effect aberrations have so the effect of diffraction jut becomes visible earlier.
Hasa said:
and for this particular nice 55mm F1.8 Sony/Zeiss lens you will see decreasing sharpness in the middle already past F5.6, so good luck getting sharp images with that 50mm @ F16.
Click to expand...
Red Holger's post about that https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61557269
Click to expand...
Grteat news for macro shooting, please point me to a link where I can get the deconvolution!
Click to expand...
Ask Holger.
 
justmeMN said:
justmeMN said:
Holger Bargen wrote: But what's the key point of mirrorless - if not size?
Click to expand...
People who aren't competent enough to use a DSLR like the "training wheels" of having a Live Histogram in the viewfinder. :-)
Click to expand...
Huh? I'd say a live histogram is for those who demand precision. Of course, an EVF can be configured without a histogram if you feel your manhood could be drawn into question. So, do you feel the same way about those who use a light meter? :)

I was never able to view the image in the VF of a DSLR. Too small and my eyesight too poor. Live View helped but in bright sunlight (about 5/6 of my shooting day), the LCD is too washed out to see well.
 
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Hasa said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Hasa said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Hasa said:
ZodiacPhoto said:
For my real needs (landscapes mostly), I close the lens to f/8 - f/16, and at these apertures those simple lenses become nearly perfect from corner to corner!
Click to expand...
Splitting hairs maybe but diffraction sets in at F13 on a 50 mm and is significant at F16.
Click to expand...
Actually, diffraction sets in a the widest aperture on any lens. Its effect is minor compared to aberrations at wider apertures but is always there. The point at which the effect of diffraction becomes an important factor depends on many things - there is no hard and fast f-stop at which it becomes significant.
Click to expand...
The hard and fast rule is that diffraction becomes more important as you close the diaphragm.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I said ...
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Maybe you can show me a lens where it does not happen or the opposite is true? It would be interesting.
Click to expand...
Of course I can't - to repeat what I wrote above "diffraction sets in a the widest aperture on any lens".

Diffraction is an effect caused by the edges of apertures; the smaller the aperture the greater the effect. So a perfectly corrected lens would have its peak resolution at maximum aperture. However, all lenses also suffer from aberrations of various types caused b the curvature of the glass. Curvature is steepest at the edges of the lens so aberrations are worst wide open.

The result is typically what these charts show - resolution wide open is reduced by aberrations and is (relatively) low; the effect of diffraction is tiny wide open and has negligible effect. On first stopping down the effect of aberrations reduces while the effect of diffraction is still small so resolution improves; but on stopping down further diffraction gets progressively stronger and resolution falls away.
Gerry Winterbourne said:
What surprised me was that diffraction sets in so early while stopping down
Click to expand...
As I said, it doesn't "cut in" there. The better corrected a lens is the less effect aberrations have so the effect of diffraction jut becomes visible earlier.
Gerry Winterbourne said:
and for this particular nice 55mm F1.8 Sony/Zeiss lens you will see decreasing sharpness in the middle already past F5.6, so good luck getting sharp images with that 50mm @ F16.
Click to expand...
Red Holger's post about that https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61557269
Click to expand...
Grteat news for macro shooting, please point me to a link where I can get the deconvolution!
Click to expand...
Ask Holger.
Click to expand...
I can recommend RawTherapee for this job. Here is an article about the tool:

Loading…

www.pentaxforums.com

Loading…

www.pentaxforums.com

If you use a new Pentax DSLR with an actual lens the camera does the deconvolution job for you if your switch it "ON" in the menu.

If you use RawTherapee you should also try the Wavelet function.

I like the sharpening of RawTherapee - but if it comes to colours, contrast etc. I prefer other programs.

I have Piccure+ - but this program seems to be no longer supported. You still can download the latest version - but you can't buy it.

Piccure+ uses ImageMagick as machine for doing the deconvolution job.

Loading…

www.imagemagick.org

This program is still available - but I find it not very user friendly if you don't want to do post-processing from a programmers view.

Best regards

Holger

Best regards

Holger
 
Could the new Nikon Z lenses be designed for a larger image circle then needed for FF sensors?
 
KWNJr said:
Could the new Nikon Z lenses be designed for a larger image circle then needed for FF sensors?
Click to expand...
Are you asking why the mount is so large, or if it would be possible to to do so?

There were speculations that Nikon was creating a mount that could handle 44 x 33 and FF sensors - but 44 x 33 requires a 55 mm image circle - and the diameter between the bayonet tabs (not the inner edge of the mount ring, which is what everyone is quoting) is around 49mm. So it's very unlikely that Nikon would go to all this trouble to create a mount with breathing room to maximize FF image quality and then throw it away with a marginal mount for MF, whose raison d'etre is image quality.

The CX mount was derided for being larger than appeared necessary for 1" sensors. But CX lenses were, unlike u4/3 lenses, designed to not require software correction, so their image circle was a bit wider and the elements a bit bigger to do so.

The Z-mount appears to be following the same philosophy. But you can also look at it as being the minimum size necessary to achieve Nikon's optical quality standards for S-class lenses, which are supposedly higher than f-mount gold ring.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking of the possibility of a mini-MF sensor, as mentioned in some threads about the Nikon Z mount/camera speculation. Larger than FF, but smaller then the MF you mentioned.

I would think of it as the equivalent of coming out with APS-H when the largest most cameras had was APS-C size sensors, before FF sensors were available.
 
KWNJr said:
I was thinking of the possibility of a mini-MF sensor, as mentioned in some threads about the Nikon Z mount/camera speculation. Larger than FF, but smaller then the MF you mentioned.

I would think of it as the equivalent of coming out with APS-H when the largest most cameras had was APS-C size sensors, before FF sensors were available.
Click to expand...
There's that sort of progression already in place today - the u43/APS-C/APS-H/FF relationship (2/3 stop jumps) continues with FF/MF 44x33/MF 51x40. The question would be is it worth it to introduce a completely new format with less than 2/3 stop improvement in light gathering ability relative to the Z-mount. The D850 is already nipping at the heels of the 645 cameras...
 
mosswings said:
KWNJr said:
I was thinking of the possibility of a mini-MF sensor, as mentioned in some threads about the Nikon Z mount/camera speculation. Larger than FF, but smaller then the MF you mentioned.

I would think of it as the equivalent of coming out with APS-H when the largest most cameras had was APS-C size sensors, before FF sensors were available.
Click to expand...
There's that sort of progression already in place today - the u43/APS-C/APS-H/FF relationship (2/3 stop jumps) continues with FF/MF 44x33/MF 51x40. The question would be is it worth it to introduce a completely new format with less than 2/3 stop improvement in light gathering ability relative to the Z-mount. The D850 is already nipping at the heels of the 645 cameras...
Click to expand...
I think you are right. Less than 2/3 stop improvement would not be worthwhile.
 
Holger Bargen said:
ZodiacPhoto said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Hasa said:
ZodiacPhoto said:
For my real needs (landscapes mostly), I close the lens to f/8 - f/16, and at these apertures those simple lenses become nearly perfect from corner to corner!
Click to expand...
Splitting hairs maybe but diffraction sets in at F13 on a 50 mm and is significant at F16.
Click to expand...
Actually, diffraction sets in a the widest aperture on any lens. Its effect is minor compared to aberrations at wider apertures but is always there. The point at which the effect of diffraction becomes an important factor depends on many things - there is no hard and fast f-stop at which it becomes significant.
Click to expand...
Correct - and with landscapes, you have to choose between softness from diffraction vs. softness from limited DOF - or use focus stacking, if time allows.
Click to expand...
Softness from diffraction can be corrected easily (deconvolution) - missing DOF can't be created in post-processing. Where diffraction sets in to become a source of blur that influences IQ in an adverse way depends on the pixel density of the sensor. A small sensor has usually a higher pixel density than a FF or medium format sensor (but it depends). It is also important what' your object. Some objects live from wide areas as graphical structures where you don't need finest details but the entire range of this object within DOF. But maybe finest structures are just the aim of your photo and you will have to control any source of blur.
Click to expand...
Hi Holger,

"corrected ... deconvolution.." is that some filter setting in photoshop or a perhaps a photoshop plugin? It would be nice to try on my macro shots where I use F16 and F22.
 
Hasa said:
Holger Bargen said:
ZodiacPhoto said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Hasa said:
ZodiacPhoto said:
For my real needs (landscapes mostly), I close the lens to f/8 - f/16, and at these apertures those simple lenses become nearly perfect from corner to corner!
Click to expand...
Splitting hairs maybe but diffraction sets in at F13 on a 50 mm and is significant at F16.
Click to expand...
Actually, diffraction sets in a the widest aperture on any lens. Its effect is minor compared to aberrations at wider apertures but is always there. The point at which the effect of diffraction becomes an important factor depends on many things - there is no hard and fast f-stop at which it becomes significant.
Click to expand...
Correct - and with landscapes, you have to choose between softness from diffraction vs. softness from limited DOF - or use focus stacking, if time allows.
Click to expand...
Softness from diffraction can be corrected easily (deconvolution) - missing DOF can't be created in post-processing. Where diffraction sets in to become a source of blur that influences IQ in an adverse way depends on the pixel density of the sensor. A small sensor has usually a higher pixel density than a FF or medium format sensor (but it depends). It is also important what' your object. Some objects live from wide areas as graphical structures where you don't need finest details but the entire range of this object within DOF. But maybe finest structures are just the aim of your photo and you will have to control any source of blur.
Click to expand...
Hi Holger,

"corrected ... deconvolution.." is that some filter setting in photoshop or a perhaps a photoshop plugin? It would be nice to try on my macro shots where I use F16 and F22.
Click to expand...
On the detail slider in ACR, move it to the right 80-100. That’s deconvolution.
 
Holger Bargen said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Hasa said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Hasa said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
Hasa said:
ZodiacPhoto said:
For my real needs (landscapes mostly), I close the lens to f/8 - f/16, and at these apertures those simple lenses become nearly perfect from corner to corner!
Click to expand...
Splitting hairs maybe but diffraction sets in at F13 on a 50 mm and is significant at F16.
Click to expand...
Actually, diffraction sets in a the widest aperture on any lens. Its effect is minor compared to aberrations at wider apertures but is always there. The point at which the effect of diffraction becomes an important factor depends on many things - there is no hard and fast f-stop at which it becomes significant.
Click to expand...
The hard and fast rule is that diffraction becomes more important as you close the diaphragm.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I said ...
Holger Bargen said:
Maybe you can show me a lens where it does not happen or the opposite is true? It would be interesting.
Click to expand...
Of course I can't - to repeat what I wrote above "diffraction sets in a the widest aperture on any lens".

Diffraction is an effect caused by the edges of apertures; the smaller the aperture the greater the effect. So a perfectly corrected lens would have its peak resolution at maximum aperture. However, all lenses also suffer from aberrations of various types caused b the curvature of the glass. Curvature is steepest at the edges of the lens so aberrations are worst wide open.

The result is typically what these charts show - resolution wide open is reduced by aberrations and is (relatively) low; the effect of diffraction is tiny wide open and has negligible effect. On first stopping down the effect of aberrations reduces while the effect of diffraction is still small so resolution improves; but on stopping down further diffraction gets progressively stronger and resolution falls away.
Holger Bargen said:
What surprised me was that diffraction sets in so early while stopping down
Click to expand...
As I said, it doesn't "cut in" there. The better corrected a lens is the less effect aberrations have so the effect of diffraction jut becomes visible earlier.
Holger Bargen said:
and for this particular nice 55mm F1.8 Sony/Zeiss lens you will see decreasing sharpness in the middle already past F5.6, so good luck getting sharp images with that 50mm @ F16.
Click to expand...
Red Holger's post about that https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61557269
Click to expand...
Grteat news for macro shooting, please point me to a link where I can get the deconvolution!
Click to expand...
Ask Holger.
Click to expand...
I can recommend RawTherapee for this job. Here is an article about the tool:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums...owerful-diffraction-correction-technique.html

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1/316989-k-1-diffraction-2.html

If you use a new Pentax DSLR with an actual lens the camera does the deconvolution job for you if your switch it "ON" in the menu.

If you use RawTherapee you should also try the Wavelet function.

I like the sharpening of RawTherapee - but if it comes to colours, contrast etc. I prefer other programs.

I have Piccure+ - but this program seems to be no longer supported. You still can download the latest version - but you can't buy it.

Piccure+ uses ImageMagick as machine for doing the deconvolution job.

http://www.imagemagick.org/script/index.php

This program is still available - but I find it not very user friendly if you don't want to do post-processing from a programmers view.

Best regards

Holger

Best regards

Holger
Click to expand...
Ups Holger, I posed my question before I saw your answer LOL

However I saw that the "sharpen" special effect is under construction in imagemagick v.7.0.8-11. Do I have to look somehwere else for deconvolution, e.g. fourier transforms?

I agree with your comment on "post-processing from a programmers view." -this would be incredibly time consuming compared to just moving a slider in LR or similar.
 
tassienick said:
Holger Bargen said:
tassienick said:
Holger Bargen said:
MILC may help you to leave the field with better JPGs - but if high end is your aim you will hardly use JPG and neglect the the options RAW give to you.

Of course I can shoot RAW with MILC cameras - but all the information you have in the display and that may distraction from your object and the true aim of your photography is useless if you shoot RAW and your general settings for a location were checked for a few test shoots at the camera monitor.
Click to expand...
What are you even talking about? Countless mirrorless shooters use RAW exclusively, and to great effect. Have you ever actually shot RAW on a properly set up mirrorless body?
Click to expand...
If you have a histogram in your EVF - is it based on JPG or based on RAW?
Click to expand...
JPEG. Which is why I said 'a properly set up mirrorless body'. If you're a RAW shooter, custom set the jpeg processing to whatever you want your RAWs to look like (ie. low contrast, low saturation etc.) and it's going to give you a pretty good indication of the bulk of the RAW file. Learn your camera and you'll soon have a decent idea how much additional head room you'll have to work with in post.
Click to expand...
Very good point! I usually shoot raw and it never occurred to me that this (jpeg settings) could be an issue. I used the histogram in the mirrorless Sony R1 ages ago and I was just blown away by this feature alone!

Would you rate switching either on or off the "D-lighting" feature that compresses the histogram a bit to avoid blown highlight, as most suited for the histogram as an aid for shooting raw, D-light on or off?

I know it has no influence on the raw file itself, just the jpeg preview.
tassienick said:
tassienick said:
Is it greyscales only or do you have the triple colour chanel information?
Click to expand...
Nope, just greyscale. If you want to check individual colour channels all the info is there in image replay.

It's a helpful guide, nothing more, nothing less. But your claim of it being 'almost useless' is just plain wrong.
Click to expand...
 
tko said:
But it does mean they won't all be small, because sometimes it's all about the bass.
Click to expand...
Best last line I've seen in a post for some time... 😁
 
Last edited:
Size does matter to wide-open, image quality and bokeh dreamers

Look at lenses for Canon EOS-R: 24-70 F2 @ 1,4Kg!

It is not far from the Nikon 500 F5.6 PF.

Nikon is getting beat up for trying to do just that: make big 1.8 lenses instead of huge Sigma-style 1.4 lenses. And yes there are tiny 1.4 and 1.8 lenses from CaNikon but they are mush wide open in corners, so people buy Sigma 1.4 or Tamron 1.8. The Z Nikkors are comparable in price and weight to the 1.8 Tamrons. Hopefully they will according to what Nikon claims be even better across the field and less coma wide open.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
M6II vs Nikon Z6(II) AF
Replies
17
Views
20K
musicshootr
M
W
Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S II - form factors considerations
Replies
7
Views
132K
Rodenmg
Rodenmg
S
Nikon cameras grew bigger!
2
Replies
23
Views
7K
Pixel8888
P
Diswantsho
  • Question Question
Opinions on a view camera?
Replies
7
Views
3K
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany
vegetaleb
Nikon 26mm f2.8 vs Sony 24mm f2.8 on adapter?
Replies
18
Views
22K
batterypark
B

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top