Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 472179" data-attributes="member: 12496">Hardly worth the effort if you don't bother to read it.  What about some of these points?1. the diffraction is already there, regardless if the lesser resolution of larger pixels can show it or not. Loss of detail is loss of detail.2. the 20 years of compact camera sensor resolutions (pixel size) did not make a dent in the diffraction limited useful apertures we can use.3. we don't even photograph point sources or Airy disks.Certainly diffraction exists, no one is arguing otherwise.  Certainly it is worse at f/40 than f/8, no one is arguing otherwise.But we do not necessarily drop dead there.  It depends, sometimes the additional depth of field helps more than the greater diffraction hurts.  This is quite obvious, you should try it.  We should think about things, and try some things, and go with what works.  Seeing is believing.  Simply incorrect, it is the worst possible advice, at least from a photographers viewpoint of wanting to produce better photographs (it does depend on the situation).  Really, you actually don't understand that it is also about depth of field?   If f/32 is not in your arsenal, you are going out unarmed (at times). If you want to see my f/40, see <a href="http://www.scantips.com/lights/diffraction.html" target="_blank">Diffraction limited images? Really?</a>Bottom of page is f/40.  There is also some f/32 there and next page.  FX and DX, and a few lenses.   I can easily see diffraction.  It is a bad thing, but I can also see that sometimes the greater depth of field helps, a lot,  helps more than diffraction hurts.I can easily see having to enlarge a smaller sensor more is less good than less enlargement of larger sensor (but the views are different).But I can find no evidence of pixel limited diffraction.  The diffraction is already there, and the pixel resolution simply shows the details there.</blockquote>

Verification