Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 363061" data-attributes="member: 12496">CA and diffraction are different properties, but neither helps sharpness.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp;&nbsp; I can't say I am ever bothered with CA, I don't view at 100% often.But if you have tried and verified your case, then great.&nbsp; I am impressed by actually trying.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />My overall point was:In general, instead of blindly believing everything we hear on the internet (about image pixels being too small, which is too much resolution),we should actually try stopping down (for example, f/22, or more), not routinely, but when we seriously need more depth of field. When it helps, it helps (obviously and dramatically). Not in every case, but it helps tremendously in many cases. This is why the f/stops are provided.&nbsp; They work, really well&nbsp; (short lenses are a special case however, needing more image object size to counteract).But we are dumb to always shut out the valuable f/16 and f/22 from consideration, merely based on some poor hearsay opinion (other than our own). <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />If we claim to believe it matters, then we should be able to see it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 363061, member: 12496"] CA and diffraction are different properties, but neither helps sharpness. :) I can't say I am ever bothered with CA, I don't view at 100% often. But if you have tried and verified your case, then great. I am impressed by actually trying. :) My overall point was: In general, instead of blindly believing everything we hear on the internet (about image pixels being too small, which is too much resolution), we should [B]actually try[/B] stopping down (for example, f/22, or more), not routinely, [B]but when we seriously need more depth of field[/B]. When it helps, it helps (obviously and dramatically). Not in every case, but it helps tremendously in many cases. This is why the f/stops are provided. They work, really well (short lenses are a special case however, needing more image object size to counteract). But we are dumb to always shut out the valuable f/16 and f/22 from consideration, merely based on some poor hearsay opinion (other than our own). :) If we claim to believe it matters, then we should be able to see it. [/QUOTE]

Verification