So diffraction isn't as big a problem if you don't stop down, according
to that article. Interesting.
On 7/19/2011 12:54 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
This one is more to the point:
http://www.digitalversus.com/guide-diffraction-camera-sensors-article-1017.html
(Yes, I have better things to do but I'm waiting for my student to get
back from lunch so she can practice her talk.)
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Steven Desjardins<[email protected]> wrote:
Here's what I found:
"Typically the sensor size is 1/5.5 that of 35mm film, thus the limit
for the onset of visible diffraction limit for 12 megapixels is
f/2.4. Since only one small-sensor camera currently has a lens that
fast, this means that small cameras are always diffraction limited and
that megapixel counts much above about 12—which is currently
offered—are almost pointless. This observation explains why typical
small cameras do not even allow f-stops smaller than f/8: at f/8 the
onset-of-diffraction limit is 450 lines, corresponding to about 1.5
megapixels.
The author has also observed this effect: pictures taken at f/8 are
visibly, disappointingly less sharp than those taken at wider
apertures. I have started using a pocket camera with manual override
to assure that I use apertures wider than about f/5, and preferable
much wider, whenever possible."
The site is:
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/guest/physical_limits.html
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Steven Desjardins<[email protected]> wrote:
It's an interesting point. Mu43 lenses hit their sweet spot around f4
and diffraction effects are rearing their head above f8. I may go
agoogling about this.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 12:21 PM, P. J. Alling
<[email protected]> wrote:
It's a recording device. If he lenses are good then everything in you photo
will be sharp, no distracting out of focus areas. Now you can take this
with a grain of salt, because it's quite likely I did the math wrong but the
f 1.9 Standard (8mm), lens would have the same lens opening diameter, wide
open as a 35mm lens would have at f ~147. Not to mention that the 35mm lens
on an APS-C sized sensor, (or film for that matter), would be suffering from
serious diffraction effects. I don't see how diffraction isn't a major
problem for the Q camera system.
On 7/19/2011 7:50 AM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
It's overpriced of course, but I actually think it could be a very
creative tool. That K7 and all its wonders are often sitting in the
bag at home.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Christine Aguila<[email protected]>
wrote:
Neato! Thanks for posting, Godfrey! Cheers, Christine
----- Original Message ----- From: "Godfrey
DiGiorgi"<[email protected]>
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"<[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 9:58 PM
Subject: Pentax Q photos
http://www.flickr.com/photos/n00bs/5943610162/in/set-72157627083831739/
And there's a K1 in the set...
--
Godfrey
godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom!
--Marvin the Martian.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
Steve Desjardins
--
Steve Desjardins
--
Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom!
--Marvin the Martian.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
