Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
High ISO Performance and Fast Lenses
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 472139" data-attributes="member: 12496"><p>FWIW, I personally think this pixel size part is a myth about diffraction, only a confusion factor invented and promoted by techie wannabes, proud they learned to compute things (meaningful or not), instead of being promoted by lens or sensor designers who count (and actually know). My opinion, but Nikon, Canon and Sony don't say things like that either. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p> Diffraction does of course increase with stopped down aperture, but pixel size is not a factor of diffraction or of diffraction effects. Smaller pixels may mean more noise, but smaller pixels are always simply greater resolution (for reproducing the resolution of the lens image), which aspect is always a good thing, at least until up to a point well beyond the lens resolution (Nyquist, etc).</p><p></p><p>Somehow the techies manage to even assume the airy disk must somehow be perfectly centered on the pixel area (because they can calculate that). <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> But even if it magically in fact were, greater resolution to show what is actually present there is always a good thing (better than being unable to resolve the detail that is there).</p><p></p><p> Certainly there are times that f/22 or f/32, or even more does greatly improve the image (some images, not all images), even though diffraction obviously increases. More so in telephoto lenses of course, not so much in wide angles, since diffraction is about aperture size, not about pixel size. Telephoto lenses normally do provide f/32 because it certainly can help some cases. Wide angle lens don't, f/32 won't help them much. Diffraction is just a tradeoff with depth of field, which are tools, and there are cases when either one is most important. Diffraction is about aperture size, not pixel size. Film had grain too, small particles comparable to pixels, but the subject never was any issue about diffraction until internet techies. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> The issue was always about resolving the detail that was there. We ought to question anything we read on the internet. We ought to be able to SEE the things we claim to believe</p><p></p><p>I put some tries to show this at <a href="http://www.scantips.com/lights/diffraction.html" target="_blank">Diffraction limited images? Really?</a></p><p></p><p>It compares a 12 mp DX D300 with a 36 mp FX D800. It easily shows stopping down more can sometimes help the image, and that greater enlargement of smaller sensor size certainly is also a factor, but it is unable to show pixel size has any effect at all. Diffraction is about aperture, and smaller pixel size is simply greater resolution, always a good thing (except for noise). .</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 472139, member: 12496"] FWIW, I personally think this pixel size part is a myth about diffraction, only a confusion factor invented and promoted by techie wannabes, proud they learned to compute things (meaningful or not), instead of being promoted by lens or sensor designers who count (and actually know). My opinion, but Nikon, Canon and Sony don't say things like that either. :) Diffraction does of course increase with stopped down aperture, but pixel size is not a factor of diffraction or of diffraction effects. Smaller pixels may mean more noise, but smaller pixels are always simply greater resolution (for reproducing the resolution of the lens image), which aspect is always a good thing, at least until up to a point well beyond the lens resolution (Nyquist, etc). Somehow the techies manage to even assume the airy disk must somehow be perfectly centered on the pixel area (because they can calculate that). :) But even if it magically in fact were, greater resolution to show what is actually present there is always a good thing (better than being unable to resolve the detail that is there). Certainly there are times that f/22 or f/32, or even more does greatly improve the image (some images, not all images), even though diffraction obviously increases. More so in telephoto lenses of course, not so much in wide angles, since diffraction is about aperture size, not about pixel size. Telephoto lenses normally do provide f/32 because it certainly can help some cases. Wide angle lens don't, f/32 won't help them much. Diffraction is just a tradeoff with depth of field, which are tools, and there are cases when either one is most important. Diffraction is about aperture size, not pixel size. Film had grain too, small particles comparable to pixels, but the subject never was any issue about diffraction until internet techies. :) The issue was always about resolving the detail that was there. We ought to question anything we read on the internet. We ought to be able to SEE the things we claim to believe I put some tries to show this at [URL="http://www.scantips.com/lights/diffraction.html"]Diffraction limited images? Really?[/URL] It compares a 12 mp DX D300 with a 36 mp FX D800. It easily shows stopping down more can sometimes help the image, and that greater enlargement of smaller sensor size certainly is also a factor, but it is unable to show pixel size has any effect at all. Diffraction is about aperture, and smaller pixel size is simply greater resolution, always a good thing (except for noise). . [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
High ISO Performance and Fast Lenses
Top
