Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 422934" data-attributes="member: 12496">The results speak for themselves.&nbsp; The greater depth of field simply improves the picture, makes f/36 be a better picture overall (in this macro case). There is no question about it, because of course, it's been common knowledge for decades.&nbsp; Digital pixels don't change anything.&nbsp;&nbsp; If it were a 20mm lens at 15 feet,&nbsp; f/36 might not be true, but it certainly is true here.&nbsp; We should try some things when we need depth of field, and compare the results.&nbsp; If it helps, it helps.&nbsp;&nbsp; Don't listen to the naysayers.&nbsp;The OP video did not mention focal length, but an old rule of thumb I heard many years ago (about diffraction) is to stay at a fstop not exceeding focal length / 4 (for sharpest results).&nbsp; &nbsp; This basically defines a 4 mm aperture.Ansel Adams founded his <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Group_f/64" target="_blank">f/64 group</a> in the 1930s, for the purpose to promote sharper pictures.f64 x 4 = focal length 256 mm.&nbsp; His 8x10 view cameras typically used 325 mm to 600 mm lenses, so he was safe.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />The 105mm lens at 1:1 is necessarily 210 mm...&nbsp; /4 = f/52.I have more samples posted at <a href="http://www.scantips.com/lights/diffraction.html" target="_blank">Diffraction limited images? Really?</a></blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 422934, member: 12496"] The results speak for themselves. The greater depth of field simply improves the picture, makes f/36 be a better picture overall (in this macro case). There is no question about it, because of course, it's been common knowledge for decades. Digital pixels don't change anything. If it were a 20mm lens at 15 feet, f/36 might not be true, but it certainly is true here. We should try some things when we need depth of field, and compare the results. If it helps, it helps. Don't listen to the naysayers. The OP video did not mention focal length, but an old rule of thumb I heard many years ago (about diffraction) is to stay at a fstop not exceeding focal length / 4 (for sharpest results). This basically defines a 4 mm aperture. Ansel Adams founded his [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Group_f/64"]f/64 group[/URL] in the 1930s, for the purpose to promote sharper pictures. f64 x 4 = focal length 256 mm. His 8x10 view cameras typically used 325 mm to 600 mm lenses, so he was safe. :) The 105mm lens at 1:1 is necessarily 210 mm... /4 = f/52. I have more samples posted at [URL="http://www.scantips.com/lights/diffraction.html"]Diffraction limited images? Really?[/URL] [/QUOTE]

Verification