Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="aroy" data-source="post: 363546" data-attributes="member: 16090">Theory is fine, calculations even better, but ultimately we are basing these on data which may not be upto mark. Lens data is generally based on theoretical calculations by lense designers, and has very little to do with the actual lense manufactured. The one in your hand may be even off the theory due to to manufacturing tolerances. That is why I am firm believer in testing what I have and using empirical data gathered. So if I have to find DOF, I would consult the DOF tables, but then test the DOF in field, and effects of high F stops on sharpness.I again reiterate my view that a bit of IQ loss due to diffraction ;at F32/F40; is much better than loss of focus of half or more of the image at F8. After all when I am photographing a fly or a flower I do not want half of it out of focus. One must not forget that the aim is to capture the image diffraction effects be damned.:fat:</blockquote>

[QUOTE="aroy, post: 363546, member: 16090"] Theory is fine, calculations even better, but ultimately we are basing these on data which may not be upto mark. Lens data is generally based on theoretical calculations by lense designers, and has very little to do with the actual lense manufactured. The one in your hand may be even off the theory due to to manufacturing tolerances. That is why I am firm believer in testing what I have and using empirical data gathered. So if I have to find DOF, I would consult the DOF tables, but then test the DOF in field, and effects of high F stops on sharpness. I again reiterate my view that a bit of IQ loss due to diffraction ;at F32/F40; is much better than loss of focus of half or more of the image at F8. After all when I am photographing a fly or a flower I do not want half of it out of focus. One must not forget that the aim is to capture the image diffraction effects be damned.:fat: [/QUOTE]

Verification