Are you really saying that DOF is pointless?
I'm saying that sacrificing anything for 1.5 instead of 1mm when that difference hardly covers the bug's eyebrows is an exercise in futility.
Not a popular notion.
See the BOTTOM two pictures (of blue ruler) at Diffraction limited images? Really?
Try to identify the benefit of DOF.
Try to identify the harm of f/40 diffraction.
Wayne, let's quit talking about DoF as an abstract thing and put it into real world numbers.
Here's the reality:
In macro at 1:1 when I use f/8 with my cam I have 0.5mm DOF -if I remember well. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)
At f/16 I double that and again double that at f/32. Thus at f/32 I have a whopping 2mm.
Now let's convert that to sensor pixels (even when my pixels don't really go into that direction). 0.5mm would be 80 pixels. 2mm would be 320 pixels. ON 6000.
That's the sad reality.
The truth is that the moment our subject in macro is large enough for us to distinguish its features with the naked eye, it is most likely too large for any DoF we can squeeze out of our cam.
DoF in normal photography is a whole different matter than DoF in macro where we talk about ranges that minuscule it is almost laughable.
DOF certainly is small at macro, but your NUMBERS are the abstract thing in this case. Founded on vague assumptions, like CoC approximations (just someone's notion), and enlargement and viewing size (variables), and even that a 105mm lens is 105mm at 1:1 (it ain't). The real world result is the important thing.
See the two pictures referenced just above.
I calculate stuff all the time, rather enjoy doing it, but it's really just a starting point.
All of photography is trading one thing for another. In this case the whole purple thing acceptably sharp or one end of it a little sharper maybe. Could back up, but distance loses detail also, so another trade.
Diffraction is good to know about, but most folks don't run into it before they run into soft for some other reason.
All of photography is trading one thing for another. In this case the whole purple thing acceptably sharp or one end of it a little sharper maybe. Could back up, but distance loses detail also, so another trade.
Diffraction is good to know about, but most folks don't run into it before they run into soft for some other reason.
Ah well, I can only give my view and that's it. Decades of knowledge are meaningless in the digital era.
PS > aperture.
But do as you like.