Relationship between Sensor Size and diffraction

[Great Bustard]

Zlik wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

If there is a 'problem' with increasing pixel count, then I think that it's more the uneven amount of aberrations across the frame at large/moderate apertures, than it is the unavoidable diffraction at small apertures. Take for example a lens that already on a 12mp FF camera has a considerably higher resolution in the center of the image at e.g. f/5.6 than it has in the corners. If we use such a lens on e.g. a 100mp FF camera, then the center resolution would be much higher than it was on the 12mp camera, but the corner resolution would increase much less (expressed as a percentage), meaning that the relative difference between center and corner resolution would become even greater than it already was (on a 12mp camera).

This is pure silliness.

He is actually right. He never said it would look worse than the lower MP camera...

I think he did in his first sentence.

...just that within the frame of the high MP camera, differences between center and corner sharpness would be higher than on the low MP camera.

But this is not a "problem".

Simplified hypothetical example: with the 12MP camera: center resolution: 7MP, corner resolution: 5MP; with the 100MP camera: center sharpness: 70MP, corner sharpness: 20MP. Even though the 100MP sensor would produce a much sharper image, difference between center and corners would be bigger.

Sure, but it is not a "problem".

Show me a photo that looks worse when taken from a D800 than when taken from the D700 based on the D800 having a greater relative difference between central resolution and edge resolution.

But I agree that it would not be a "problem" , just a fact.

That's all I'm saying!

I'm just pointing out (because I don't see it mentioned that often) that a higher MP count also means that the resolution (at large/moderate apertures) becomes more uneven across the frame than it is with the same lens on a camera with a lower MP count. Whether you consider that as an 'issue' or not, that'll depend on your preferences and shooting style (know that you don't, but some people do worry about soft corners ;-) ).

Let me repost what I wrote about soft corners:

Soft corners are a non-issue -- the corners of a higher MP capture will resolve at least as much detail as the corners of a lower MP capture.

What you are saying is that the photo will look worse because the center resolves proportionally higher than the corners with more pixels, even though the whole of the photo made with more pixels resolves more, including the corners.

It is this that I am calling "silly".

 

[Mark S Abeln]

Iliah Borg wrote:

That is OK for natural systems, but not for the systems that are created by humans that are not following Feynman’s line of logic when creating those systems. Things are getting more complicated when a system is composed of randomly chosen components and it's behavior is not very predictable under random photographic conditions.

Yes, I’ve learned — partly through your own work — that a lot of photographic systems use ad hoc techniques that don’t work really well when pushed to the limits. I’m thinking specifically of camera raw software that does not use high enough precision math — or even Photoshop itself, which does lots of ad hoc processing.

So lots of real-life photography requires trial-and-error techniques to work around poorly designed systems — which we’ve seen here lately in the great debates surrounding ‘iso-less’ shooting. But wouldn’t a Feymanian approach work well when devising work-arounds?

 

[Great Bustard]

Excellent post! I have nothing to add except "nice pics"! I think I've seen them before in a similar discussion. They were very nice then, too. ;-)

Najinsky wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Najinsky wrote:

Donald B wrote:

not having ever understood diffraction, can someone post some photos showing the effect.

cheers don

Note, how diffraction effects through the choice of F/22 on a m.4/3 sensor renders the image unusable.

...is a photo that has lost considerable resolution due to diffraction softening, but that the photo is successful despite the lower resolution and/or because the greater DOF mattered more than the loss of resolution.

It's not unlike me posting a photo at ISO 2500:

Canon 6D + 50 / 1.2L @ f/2.8, 1/60, ISO 2500

in a discussion about noise with the implication that photos in light do not suffer more noise than photos in good light.

Of course, display size, viewing distance, and visual acuity all play major roles in determining what is "good enough".

That's a really sweet capture, I like it a lot (but do wish that stray arm wasn't there).

The intent of my photo was primarily to satisfy Donald's request for a photo that showed diffraction softening. The comment about it being unusable was to provoke thoughts about how unusable it is, something which is more subjective based on how one uses their images.

Following on from Mark's comment about sharpening, it can be sharpened up and I could happily get a 4-6MP type image out of it for printing (and for retina display), though I wouldn't post that image here as it would reveal a multitude of sins that printing/retina hides.

For regular web and HD TV slideshow use a 1.5MP image hides most of the sharpening sins, at least for casual observation:

I took a whole series of these at different apertures for a previous discussion related to diffraction and sharpness, but most are now archived offline from my computer at the moment.

However, here's the same subject from a different angle at F/11:

At F/11 there is still a little diffraction but it's not really worth a mention. At full size, this image is notably sharper in the focal plane, but the shallower DOF counteracts it somewhat in that it leads to a much flatter and less interesting subject, though I still like it (which is why I kept it around). At 1.5MP the sharpness differences with the first are much less significant, while the DOF advantage of the first is still conveyed.

Like others, I'm finding the discussion interesting, but I especially liked Donald's request because it brings it all back to this; what does it really mean for our photography. Although I appreciate that isn't the primary point under discussion.

-Najinsky

 

[Great Bustard]

Mark Scott Abeln wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

It's not unlike me posting a photo at ISO 2500:

Canon 6D + 50 / 1.2L @ f/2.8, 1/60, ISO 2500

in a discussion about noise with the implication that photos in light do not suffer more noise than photos in good light.

Of course, display size, viewing distance, and visual acuity all play major roles in determining what is "good enough".

That’s a great shot.

Kind of you to say! 'Course, I wasn't paying attention to what the kids were taking a pic of, so I may have missed a better shot. ;-)

 

[moving_comfort]

Zlik wrote:...

Or put in another way:

If you want to print huge, and DoF is not an issue for the biggest part of the frame at f/5.6, you are better off shooting at f/5.6 instead of f/8 with the 36MP camera, whereas the best possible result with the 12MP camera would be at f/8, and not f/5.6. And it doesn't matter if even f/11 on the 36MP would be better than anything possible with the 12MP sensor.

.

If you were using the same lens on both cameras, this would never be the case, though.

Your lens would reach it's maximum MTF at the same aperture point on both sensors.

You could say that "It matters less if you shoot at f/5.6 or f/8 on the 12MP camera", but f/8 would never give you more resolution there.

.

--
Here are a few of my favorite things...
---> http://www.flickr.com/photos/95095968@N00/sets/72157626171532197/

 

[Iliah Borg]

But wouldn’t a Feymanian approach work well when devising work-arounds?

I guess the great diffraction debates are about the _image_ resolution.

Well, a slight fingerprint on a lens, a small handshake, a little dust in the air, slightly bent lens mount, some grease on AA filter, and less than perfect sensor alignment makes this discussion poorly determined, especially across formats because those are major factors.

 

[Iliah Borg]

Tony Beach wrote:

Mark Scott Abeln wrote:

Iliah Borg wrote:

In the long run it would seem probable that medium/large format would become irrelevant - depending on exactly how much current sensors and lenses can be improved.

One of the reasons why MF/LF may never become irrelevant is front and rear standard movements.

Tilts, shifts, and swings as Iliah mentioned, once an essential part of the photographer’s toolkit, are now extremely rare.

Yeah, converging lines are something that always bother me, especially for landscapes.

Imagine you are shooting holding your camera over your head, in the crowd. Shifting the lens up and tilting it down gives very nice perspective for the shot and much better depth of field.

 

[bobn2]

David Rosser wrote:

Bobn2 wrote:

olliess wrote:

Bobn2 wrote:

olliess wrote:

quadrox wrote:

In the end that means that medium format and large format only hold an advantage as long as DSLR lenses are not diffraction limited.

I think it's correct to say that we're getting to the point where DSLRs significantly affected by diffraction, and may even be said to be diffraction-limited at some apertures.

I don't think it's correct to say that, or at least, not meaningful. We are still well short of pixel counts such that the resolution of the lens is the limit over the whole aperture range.

I didn't say "over the whole aperture range," I said "at some apertures."

But they've always been diffraction limited at the same 'some apertures' - it is a property of the lens, not the camera. Look at this lens resolution graph (taken from DxOmark in the good old days when the gave full MTF)



Here we have the same lens on a 12MP and 24MP FF camera. The downward slope to the right is where the lens is becoming 'diffraction limited' - that is, its resolution is limited by diffraction rather than aberrations. Notice that the slope starts at the same place. The only difference is that the 24Mp camera is extracting more from the diffraction limited lens. The 24MP is no more 'diffraction limited' that the 12MP.

In any case, mostly, the lens is giving its best resolution (which present cameras cannot entirely capture) when it is aberration, not diffraction limited.

Sure.

This whole idea of cameras being 'diffraction limited' due to high pixel count is bogus. Diffraction is a property of the lens, not the camera.

The camera isn't diffraction limited DUE to higher pixel counts. It's diffraction that is limiting your ability to gain much more from higher pixel counts.

Then we still have some way to go before the diffraction is the limiting factor on our camera systems at moderate apertures. As the above shows, even at the smallest apertures, increased pixel count is still yielding noticeably more.

--
Bob

Bob it might help a lot if you explained that the MTF curves in the figure above are composite curves - the MTF for the lens at some fixed number of lp/mm at each aperture multiplied by the MTF of the sensor at that same lp/mm figure. When you understand that you realise that unless you have a sensor with infinite resolution the combined MTF is always going to improve with increasing sensor resolution.

Thank you for explaining that, so that I don't have to.

Of course I have never seen a sensor MTF curve - the only hint is a Zeiss paper which suggests that sensor MTF falls linearly from 100% at 0 frequency to 0% at the Nyquist frequency. Now if anybody still tested lenses independent of camera bodies like they used to (I still have the EROS200 lens test date for my 55mm f/3.5 micro Nikkor that R.G.Lewis produced prior to selling me the lens) you could use the lens data and the combined data as prooduced by DxOmark to estimate the sensor MTF.

Perhaps as this site now uses DxOmark data Amazon could afford to buy DxOmark the modern equivalent of EROS200.

Indeed, you don't see too many experimentally determined lens (without camera) or sensor MTF curves.

There are some AA filter curves here

the 'quartz' (i.e birefringent) is not a bad approximation to the theory, which is simply the Fourier transform of the box PSF that such a filter should give.

There are also some theoretical curves for a sensor without AA filter due to Bart van der Wolf here These are assuming the 100% aperture function that 100% microlenses should give.

--
Bob

 

[moving_comfort]

Zlik wrote:...

I think this whole discussion can be summarized into two non mutually exclusive claims:

• One person (Bobn2) says that the higher megapixel camera will always produce better or at worse equal resolution than the low megapixel camera, which is supported by your graph: the red graph is at all points higher than the blue graph.
• One person (olliess ) says that the higher megapixel camera will start to lose its resolution potential sooner and faster than the lower megapixel camera, which is again supported by your graph: the downwards slope starts sooner and declines faster for the red graph

It will lose it slightly faster, but not sooner. In other words, a given lens will peak at the same aperture point on either sensor, but the slope of it's decline will be slightly greater after that point on the higher-MP sensor. And of course the graph lines will never meet in the apertures most folks ever reach in their shooting.

Picking an arbitrary point at which this decline becomes... something - unacceptable? unseemly? Distatestful? Oh, right, Limited seems silly in light of the fact that even at this arbitrary point the higher res sensor will still resolve more than the lower res sensor, thus causing this label to lose it's intended meaning and become potentially misleading.

Back to terms: How about Diffraction Drain Rate? It makes a nice, unique acronym: DDR.

.

--
Here are a few of my favorite things...
---> http://www.flickr.com/photos/95095968@N00/sets/72157626171532197/

 

[moving_comfort]

Great Bustard wrote:

Mark Scott Abeln wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

It's not unlike me posting a photo at ISO 2500:

Canon 6D + 50 / 1.2L @ f/2.8, 1/60, ISO 2500

in a discussion about noise with the implication that photos in light do not suffer more noise than photos in good light.

Of course, display size, viewing distance, and visual acuity all play major roles in determining what is "good enough".

That’s a great shot.

Kind of you to say! 'Course, I wasn't paying attention to what the kids were taking a pic of, so I may have missed a better shot. ;-)

No, I think what you got was the thing to focus on. It's really a charming shot, fantastic subjects, nice lighting, enough subject isolation to make the subjects pop while retaining the environment... If that adult guide wasn't in the frame it would be 100% perfect IMO, but as it is it's wonderful.



.

--
Here are a few of my favorite things...
---> http://www.flickr.com/photos/95095968@N00/sets/72157626171532197/

 

[Zlik]

moving_comfort wrote:

Zlik wrote:...

Or put in another way:

If you want to print huge, and DoF is not an issue for the biggest part of the frame at f/5.6, you are better off shooting at f/5.6 instead of f/8 with the 36MP camera, whereas the best possible result with the 12MP camera would be at f/8, and not f/5.6. And it doesn't matter if even f/11 on the 36MP would be better than anything possible with the 12MP sensor.

.

If you were using the same lens on both cameras, this would never be the case, though.

Your lens would reach it's maximum MTF at the same aperture point on both sensors.

I know.

You could say that "It matters less if you shoot at f/5.6 or f/8 on the 12MP camera", but f/8 would never give you more resolution there.

Again, I never said it would give more resolution. I just said that if f/8 doesn't reduce resolution compared to f/5.6 on a low MP camera, the f/8 would produce a better result (result = photo) because of the added DoF.

 

[Zlik]

Bobn2 wrote:

olliess wrote:

Zlik wrote:

I think this whole discussion can be summarized into two non mutually exclusive claims:

• One person (Bobn2) says that the higher megapixel camera will always produce better or at worse equal resolution than the low megapixel camera, which is supported by your graph: the red graph is at all points higher than the blue graph.
• One person (olliess ) says that the higher megapixel camera will start to lose its resolution potential sooner and faster than the lower megapixel camera, which is again supported by your graph: the downwards slope starts sooner and declines faster for the red graph.

Thanks for summarizing so succinctly.

Seems like a good time to step away and let calmer heads prevail.

It is not true that the 'higher megapixel camera will start to lose its resolution potential sooner' it starts to lose its resolution potential at exactly the same point.

This is true, in theory, but in practice, you will never be able to tell the difference in resolution from f/5.6 to f/8 on a 4MP full frame sensor because the curve is extremely flat around the high point (f/5.6). So yes, f/8 might have 98% of the theoretical resolution achieved on that sensor at f/5.6, and that's why you can say that the diffraction starts at the same point, but visually, the diffraction will start to show later on a low MP camera. On a 100MP camera, you will easily see a difference one stop down from optimal aperture, but on a 4MP full frame camera, you won't see any difference between f/5.6 and f/8, which is why I say that on a low MP camera, you can sometimes stop down a little beyond the theoretical optimal aperture without losing any resolution visually.

That demonstrates immediately the 'diffraction limit' theory is wrong. It predicts that the smaller pixels will show diffraction limiting earlier and that cannot be demonstrated in the real world. Furthermore, the decline of resolution (the 'diffraction limit' is not where the theory predicts it to be. So, in brief the theory does not hold up to experiment.

--
Bob

 

[Zlik]

Great Bustard wrote:

Zlik wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

If there is a 'problem' with increasing pixel count, then I think that it's more the uneven amount of aberrations across the frame at large/moderate apertures, than it is the unavoidable diffraction at small apertures. Take for example a lens that already on a 12mp FF camera has a considerably higher resolution in the center of the image at e.g. f/5.6 than it has in the corners. If we use such a lens on e.g. a 100mp FF camera, then the center resolution would be much higher than it was on the 12mp camera, but the corner resolution would increase much less (expressed as a percentage), meaning that the relative difference between center and corner resolution would become even greater than it already was (on a 12mp camera).

This is pure silliness.

He is actually right. He never said it would look worse than the lower MP camera...

I think he did in his first sentence.

...just that within the frame of the high MP camera, differences between center and corner sharpness would be higher than on the low MP camera.

But this is not a "problem".

Simplified hypothetical example: with the 12MP camera: center resolution: 7MP, corner resolution: 5MP; with the 100MP camera: center sharpness: 70MP, corner sharpness: 20MP. Even though the 100MP sensor would produce a much sharper image, difference between center and corners would be bigger.

Sure, but it is not a "problem".

We agree

Show me a photo that looks worse when taken from a D800 than when taken from the D700 based on the D800 having a greater relative difference between central resolution and edge resolution.

But I agree that it would not be a "problem" , just a fact.

That's all I'm saying!

I'm just pointing out (because I don't see it mentioned that often) that a higher MP count also means that the resolution (at large/moderate apertures) becomes more uneven across the frame than it is with the same lens on a camera with a lower MP count. Whether you consider that as an 'issue' or not, that'll depend on your preferences and shooting style (know that you don't, but some people do worry about soft corners ;-) ).

Let me repost what I wrote about soft corners:

Soft corners are a non-issue -- the corners of a higher MP capture will resolve at least as much detail as the corners of a lower MP capture.

What you are saying is that the photo will look worse because the center resolves proportionally higher than the corners with more pixels, even though the whole of the photo made with more pixels resolves more, including the corners.

It is this that I am calling "silly".

Fair enough !

 

[noirdesir]

olliess wrote:

noirdesir wrote:

I have a better analogy: Maximum speed uphill.

Drag coefficient = f-stop
Weight = pixel size
Speed = effective resolution

Your example of

"Pick a threshold for a "significant" decrease in resolution. For argument's sake, I'll pick 0.80 relative to the maximum, which I'm pretty sure would be noticeable. The D3 resolves 0.80 of max resolution at f/16, so at at least for this lens, the resolution of the D3 does not seem to be "diffraction limited." The D3x on the other hand crosses this threshold at about f/11, so it could be said to be "diffraction limited" above f/11."

then turns into a lighter car whose maximum speed decreases by 20% if you open one car window compared to a heavier car where you can open two windows before the maximum speed decreases by 20%.

Do you really think that such a result has any meaningful relevance in any real-life situation? Would that information in any way affect the value of a lighter car for you?

If we only look at optical phenomena, how much is diffraction contributing to the loss of resolution compared to the lens optimum and how much are other lens aberrations? The ratio between these two numbers will always be the same for any lens at any [given] f-stop.

Apparently this is not true, based on the data shown earlier in the thread. The ratio between the optimum and the f/16 resolution was different on the different cameras.

Do you really claim that anything changes in the image a lens projects in regard which to how much diffraction and how much other aberrations contribute to the degradation of subject detail in the projected image if you change sensors? The size of the pixel can influence the image a lens projects?

The question should not be whether a sensor shows more diffraction, but how much of the theoretical lens performance does a sensor extract. Here, we are getting sooner or later into diminishing returns.

Indeed. Diffraction is only one part of the problem, but it's inescapable, so it's useful to know the limit where your sensor will start giving visibly worse resolution, no matter how good your lenses.

It's important to know from which weight downwards a lighter car will have a noticeably slowdown when opening more than one window? So, getting a lighter car might be bad because you can feel the speed difference when opening a window which in turn might make you feel compelled to keep the windows closed? But the lighter car will still be faster than the heavier car when both have their windows open. You perceive the lighter car as inferior (in some situations) than the heavier car because you feel the speed difference of opening windows. But the lighter car is not inferior, this is just

It's like doubling your salary which you don't like because it increases your marginal tax rate.

I think people usually just say "this lens is not sharp," and then post somewhere on the forums asking what new lens they should buy.

Yes, they get a new camera with higher resolution and complain that things look less sharp at 100% as it did with their older camera.

Whether you find this useful or not is up to you, but the description does contains relevant information.

The only thing this tells you is the law of diminishing returns will catch you earlier for deep DOF shots than for shots closer to lens' optimum f-stop.

It also tells you WHEN diminishing returns will catch you. You can use this information when you make your decision on how to take the picture.

No, it doesn't. Take a higher resolution camera which for a given lens doubles the drop in resolution when going from optimal f-stop to f/11. Does this information tell you anything about how large the increase in resolution at f/11 will be (compared to your current camera)?

Relevant for which situation? Maybe larger resolution differences between optimal f-stop and deep DOF with higher resolution sensors can reveal the ignorance about the concept of optimal f-stop more clearly that a person might reveal?

See the above.

 

[Allan Olesen]

Zlik wrote:
the f/8 would produce a better result (result = photo) because of the added DoF.

Added DoF = better photo?

Are you an MFT shooter?

Anyway, both sensors can produce the same combination of DoF and diffraction.

 

[noirdesir]

Zlik wrote:

Olaf Ulrich wrote:

Zlik wrote:I never said optimum aperture changed depending on pixel size. I just said that in some cases, stopping down a little bit past optimum aperture wouldn't result in loss of resolution ...

Did you or didn't you say this: "... whereas the best possible result with the 12 MP camera would be at f/8, and not f/5.6."

Yes that's exactly what I say. "Best possible result" doesn't mean optimum aperture.

And that's wrong. Please make sure you remember—and understand—your own statements properly.

Again, check the graph. There is a point where for "hypothetical low MP camera A", going 1 stop past optimum aperture does not result in lower resolution. Do we agree on that?

Now you've switched to talking about acceptable results (as opposed to best-possible results), and you're also including the need of more depth-of-field in your considerations ... which you didn't before.

I repeat: for camera A, stopping down will produce the absolute best result (no loss in resolution compared to optimum aperture but more DoF).

If you define optimal this way, the D800 stopped down to f/8 would also give the additional DOF while still being sharper everywhere in the image.

 

[bobn2]

Great Bustard wrote:

Mark Scott Abeln wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

It's not unlike me posting a photo at ISO 2500:

Canon 6D + 50 / 1.2L @ f/2.8, 1/60, ISO 2500

in a discussion about noise with the implication that photos in light do not suffer more noise than photos in good light.

Of course, display size, viewing distance, and visual acuity all play major roles in determining what is "good enough".

That’s a great shot.

Kind of you to say! 'Course, I wasn't paying attention to what the kids were taking a pic of, so I may have missed a better shot. ;-)

Many people wouldn't have let their kids photograph Jessica Alba doing a public striptease.

--
Bob

 

[bobn2]

Zlik wrote:

Bobn2 wrote:

olliess wrote:

Zlik wrote:

I think this whole discussion can be summarized into two non mutually exclusive claims:

• One person (Bobn2) says that the higher megapixel camera will always produce better or at worse equal resolution than the low megapixel camera, which is supported by your graph: the red graph is at all points higher than the blue graph.
• One person (olliess ) says that the higher megapixel camera will start to lose its resolution potential sooner and faster than the lower megapixel camera, which is again supported by your graph: the downwards slope starts sooner and declines faster for the red graph.

Thanks for summarizing so succinctly.

Seems like a good time to step away and let calmer heads prevail.

It is not true that the 'higher megapixel camera will start to lose its resolution potential sooner' it starts to lose its resolution potential at exactly the same point.

This is true, in theory, but in practice, you will never be able to tell the difference in resolution from f/5.6 to f/8 on a 4MP full frame sensor because the curve is extremely flat around the high point (f/5.6). So yes, f/8 might have 98% of the theoretical resolution achieved on that sensor at f/5.6, and that's why you can say that the diffraction starts at the same point, but visually, the diffraction will start to show later on a low MP camera. On a 100MP camera, you will easily see a difference one stop down from optimal aperture, but on a 4MP full frame camera, you won't see any difference between f/5.6 and f/8, which is why I say that on a low MP camera, you can sometimes stop down a little beyond the theoretical optimal aperture without losing any resolution visually.

That demonstrates immediately the 'diffraction limit' theory is wrong. It predicts that the smaller pixels will show diffraction limiting earlier and that cannot be demonstrated in the real world. Furthermore, the decline of resolution (the 'diffraction limit' is not where the theory predicts it to be. So, in brief the theory does not hold up to experiment.

 

[Great Bustard]

moving_comfort wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Mark Scott Abeln wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

It's not unlike me posting a photo at ISO 2500:

Canon 6D + 50 / 1.2L @ f/2.8, 1/60, ISO 2500

in a discussion about noise with the implication that photos in light do not suffer more noise than photos in good light.

Of course, display size, viewing distance, and visual acuity all play major roles in determining what is "good enough".

That’s a great shot.

Kind of you to say! 'Course, I wasn't paying attention to what the kids were taking a pic of, so I may have missed a better shot. ;-)

No, I think what you got was the thing to focus on. It's really a charming shot, fantastic subjects, nice lighting, enough subject isolation to make the subjects pop while retaining the environment... If that adult guide wasn't in the frame it would be 100% perfect IMO, but as it is it's wonderful.

Yeah -- almost everyone complains about the guide being in the shot. I talked to her after I took the pic, and explained that if she had to be in the shot, then at least wear a miniskirt and have her belly showing, but some people don't take constructive criticism well. :-D

 

[Great Bustard]

Bobn2 wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Mark Scott Abeln wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

It's not unlike me posting a photo at ISO 2500:

Canon 6D + 50 / 1.2L @ f/2.8, 1/60, ISO 2500

in a discussion about noise with the implication that photos in light do not suffer more noise than photos in good light.

Of course, display size, viewing distance, and visual acuity all play major roles in determining what is "good enough".

That’s a great shot.

Kind of you to say! 'Course, I wasn't paying attention to what the kids were taking a pic of, so I may have missed a better shot. ;-)

Many people wouldn't have let their kids photograph Jessica Alba doing a public striptease.

It was Danmitsu, not Jessica Alba. Either way, I'm not adverse to letting kids take pics of my date. :-D