Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Stoshowicz" data-source="post: 360006" data-attributes="member: 31397">Im not sure either , that last pic looks very much like the sort that I got last night using the +2 diopter&nbsp;&nbsp; I suspect that soft-haze is either a result of passing through so many layers of glass ( a percent will bounce off every layer) OR that its excess light bouncing around inside the camera body itself.&nbsp; Running with that idea , led me to using the smaller apertures originally , cleaning up most of that stray light, and giving me the deepest field I can get for my sensor size.Because that diopter changes the effective aperture a little , I figure that the diffusion issue using smaller than f22 apertures might change. I need to do more experimenting though,, the result at f37 at 200mm +6 diopters really seemed pretty good, though I doubt it'll match the prime.Tell me though, why is it you want to keep the apertures so big rather than add supplemental light ? You don't want to scare the bugs?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Stoshowicz, post: 360006, member: 31397"] Im not sure either , that last pic looks very much like the sort that I got last night using the +2 diopter I suspect that soft-haze is either a result of passing through so many layers of glass ( a percent will bounce off every layer) OR that its excess light bouncing around inside the camera body itself. Running with that idea , led me to using the smaller apertures originally , cleaning up most of that stray light, and giving me the deepest field I can get for my sensor size. Because that diopter changes the effective aperture a little , I figure that the diffusion issue using smaller than f22 apertures might change. I need to do more experimenting though,, the result at f37 at 200mm +6 diopters really seemed pretty good, though I doubt it'll match the prime. Tell me though, why is it you want to keep the apertures so big rather than add supplemental light ? You don't want to scare the bugs? [/QUOTE]

Verification