Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Lens Diffraction - When is it an issue with Medium Format Lenses?  (Read 14200 times)
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #40 on: December 07, 2011, 10:10:29 AM »
ReplyReply


You need to have fine detail down to pixel level, and it needs to be reproducible.

Great if you're photographing dollar bills, less so if your photographing landscapes.

The OP wants to know what impact diffraction will have on his landscapes. Photographing dollar bills will tell him sod all.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7427


WWW
« Reply #41 on: December 07, 2011, 10:34:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I don't agree at all. Neither a lens or a sensor will care about if you photograph a Dollar bill, or details on a redfern or twigs on a dead tree 200 m away.

But I want to have my test reproducible.

Best regards
Erik

Great if you're photographing dollar bills, less so if your photographing landscapes.

The OP wants to know what impact diffraction will have on his landscapes. Photographing dollar bills will tell him sod all.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #42 on: December 07, 2011, 10:38:59 AM »
ReplyReply

My approach to this is a purely practical one. For almost all the Zeiss 'C' lenses which I use, the best MTF is at f8, according to the factory data.

Now, I find I can see almost no loss of IQ at f11, but I do gain a bit of useful DOF over f8. So I tend to use f11 as my working aperture pretty much most of the time. If the light is really bright and I need the DOF I will use f16 just now and then, but you can certainly see a fall-off in the centre at f22 so I avoid it. That's for the normal run of lenses - on my 120mm S-Planar f22 is useable but f32 and f45 are pretty hopeless, really. The oddball lens is the 250mm Sonnar, which has its best MTF wide-open at f5.6. The DOF is pretty skinny, though. That's it - having discovered those things some while ago I no longer worry about it.

John



Most sensible take on this matter yet!

Rob C
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #43 on: December 07, 2011, 11:38:28 AM »
ReplyReply

But I want to have my test reproducible.

...and I and my clients would rather my images were reproducible.

Photographing dollar bills will tell me how diffraction impacts my photographs of dollar bills and frankly I could care less.
Logged

John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #44 on: December 07, 2011, 12:10:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Really, you know, there is no big deal about any of this stuff.

With almost all the stock MF lenses, the widest aperture will be crap - it is just there for focusing - and the smallest aperture will also be crap. (We are not talking Leica here, and amazing wide-open performance, neither are we discussing LF lenses and the capability to use f64).  So if the biggest hole and the smallest hole should be avoided, that leaves the ones in between. It's pretty safe to assume that the hole in the middle of the range (around f8) will be the best to use. So use f8, but if you need a bit more DOF then f11 will be just fine too. On the other hand, if you would like a softer background for portaits, open her up to f5.6.

That's pretty much it, really. What else are you going to do?

John
« Last Edit: December 07, 2011, 12:12:20 PM by John R Smith » Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1679


« Reply #45 on: December 07, 2011, 12:16:34 PM »
ReplyReply

...and I and my clients would rather my images were reproducible.

Photographing dollar bills will tell me how diffraction impacts my photographs of dollar bills and frankly I could care less.
The extreme "hands-on" take would be that testing camera settings when photographing pine trees say nothing about the results you will get when photographing birch trees. I dont think anyone are that fundamentalist.

The extreme "hands-off" take would be that everything worth knowing about photography can be studied by reading a book on physics, optics or the golden ratio. I dont think anyone are that fundamentalist.

Most of us try to patch together a coherent understanding/method based on _both_ personal experience and what we may read or calculate.

-h

"Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other." Benjamin Franklin
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1679


« Reply #46 on: December 07, 2011, 12:22:51 PM »
ReplyReply

That is the silliest thing I have read in a long time...
I think that it is actually a slippery slope to compare diffraction artifacts to pixel density artifacts. I would be hesitant to claim that this or that f-number corresponds to this and that number of megapixels, or that there is a hard limit beyond which the benefit of adding more megapixels are exactly zero. Nature and physics seems to generally "dislike" hard limits or rectangular functions.

But if a 180MP image contains no more details than a 6MP camera could have, so what if it looks good? I believe that people have had exhibitions and national geographic pages using 6MP cameras, the limiting factor for most of us is between the ears, or luck or travelling budget, or ...

-h
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #47 on: December 07, 2011, 12:49:09 PM »
ReplyReply

I believe that people have had exhibitions and national geographic pages using 6MP cameras, the limiting factor for most of us is between the ears, or luck or travelling budget, or ...

...placing too much importance on tests, reading books on physics, optics and particularly the golden ratio.
Logged

hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1679


« Reply #48 on: December 07, 2011, 02:01:37 PM »
ReplyReply

...placing too much importance on tests, reading books on physics, optics and particularly the golden ratio.
Or walking around with misconceptions stemming from doing a lot of hands-on testing but not understanding the physics behind it, or the issues with non-blind subjective testing.

People who reject science are particularly easily fooled by people who sells snake-oil.

-h
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7427


WWW
« Reply #49 on: December 07, 2011, 02:21:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Hy,

Physics and chemistry are obviously important, without that our planet would not support 7 billion (US) people, nor would we have cameras, computers and forums like this. I don't know if Neanderthal art was very profitable.

It's OK to be an artist but do have some respect for the folks that develop the tools you have. No lens, camera or sensor could have been created ever without a massive amount of science. OK, there have been a few lenses crafted by hand, without good knowledge of optics. But since the Petzval lens (daddy of all Tessars) all lenses are based on science.

This is a good read: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/08/lens-geneology-part-1

Best regards
Erik

Or walking around with misconceptions stemming from doing a lot of hands-on testing but not understanding the physics behind it, or the issues with non-blind subjective testing.

People who reject science are particularly easily fooled by people who sells snake-oil.

-h
Logged

theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #50 on: December 07, 2011, 03:12:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Really, you know, there is no big deal about any of this stuff.

With almost all the stock MF lenses, the widest aperture will be crap - it is just there for focusing - and the smallest aperture will also be crap. (We are not talking Leica here, and amazing wide-open performance, neither are we discussing LF lenses and the capability to use f64).  So if the biggest hole and the smallest hole should be avoided, that leaves the ones in between. It's pretty safe to assume that the hole in the middle of the range (around f8) will be the best to use. So use f8, but if you need a bit more DOF then f11 will be just fine too. On the other hand, if you would like a softer background for portaits, open her up to f5.6.

That's pretty much it, really. What else are you going to do?

John

John, you are right, there is no big deal about this stuff. I would rather have a perfect image rather than perfect resolving power.

The documentary work I do in low light handheld with MFD, the widest aperture is great. I find that some of the limitation like vignetting can add to the image and some of the "bad" aberrations are still better than handshake. Many of my medium-format lenses are actually very nice wide open. My smaller format lenses are far worse--although their max aperture is also larger.

And since the science has been brought up, the funny thing is that it does not say shoot only at f/11. The aperture range is actually determined for the format and the lenses ability. Except for a few lenses where maximum aperture is really just for focusing, the optical designers are making the apertures within the useful range.
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #51 on: December 07, 2011, 03:57:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Or walking around with misconceptions stemming from doing a lot of hands-on testing but not understanding the physics behind it, or the issues with non-blind subjective testing.

Hmm, I don't know you from Adam, but I'll hazard a guess that you make your living as a scientist rather than an image maker?
Logged

bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2794



« Reply #52 on: December 07, 2011, 04:49:48 PM »
ReplyReply

My test, below was done with a 100 mm lens at 3.0 meters. I also varied "defocus" by moving the camera in 3cm steps.

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/49-dof-in-digital-pictures?start=1

Last page shows effect of deconvolution sharpening with Lightroom and Topaz InFocus.

In general, the more you have, the more do you loose.

Erik,

An excellent demonstration! I have tried to use authoritative references to back up my calculations, but nothing beats actual data in a well done test. So far in this thread you are the only one to present actual images. The subjective impression of the IQ of an image is the most important factor in the end, but it is good to back up the impression with quantitative data such as MTF. You could add Bart van der Wolf's resolution chart to the setup to check resolution and aliasing. Thus far, none of our MFDB colleagues have taken up the challenge.

The results of the Topaz InFocus deconvolution restoration look good and have less artifact than the SmartSharpen method. I did buy InFocus when Bart recommended it and it was on sale, but I haven't used it much. It takes a bit of work to get the parameters right, and I will have to crank it up and work with it a bit more.

Regards,

Bill
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2412



WWW
« Reply #53 on: December 07, 2011, 06:37:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Hmm, I don't know you from Adam, but I'll hazard a guess that you make your living as a scientist rather than an image maker?

Some of us have both Art and Science backgrounds.  Me? I test my stuff so I know what I'm going to get and what I can and can't do with it. Saves a lot of time.  And I have degrees in both fine art and physics and worked in both professions. What's wrong with that?  The people who don't have the time/energy/experience to test all benefit from those that do.  You must have some interest in this otherwise you wouldn't read...   
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #54 on: December 07, 2011, 07:29:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Pentax 645D, D FA 55mm, ISO 200, f/22. The scene. 100% crop (and I am unsure if it is from the plane of focus). A plot of a small section of the image which is also inset in the plot. The image is resolving features 12 micros or a less on the image plane.
Logged
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2806


WWW
« Reply #55 on: December 07, 2011, 07:34:01 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't agree at all. Neither a lens or a sensor will care about if you photograph a Dollar bill, or details on a redfern or twigs on a dead tree 200 m away.

But I want to have my test reproducible.

Macro vs. Infinity lens performance are not the same. A lens may well be much sharper at infinity than it's closest focus distance (or vice versa). The sharper the lens the less diffraction can be tolerated if the goal is to get the sharpest image the system can produce.

Also in macro photography the effective aperture regarding diffraction are not the same as the marked aperture of the lens.

e.g. here is an extreme macro example where diffraction kicks in at a lens marking of f/2.8 and is severe by f/5.6.
http://www.captureintegration.com/2009/08/25/extreme-macro/

Yet another vote for real-world testing in situations as close to your actual intended use as possible.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off
« Last Edit: December 07, 2011, 07:35:49 PM by dougpetersonci » Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
Alan Klein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 720



WWW
« Reply #56 on: December 07, 2011, 09:50:17 PM »
ReplyReply

When I shoot Landscapes with my Mamiya RB67, I want everything in focus from front to rear.  So I work with the Hyperfocal distance, figure out what aperture I need, and then stop down one more stop for good measure.  Is this right?  Is this wrong?
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2412



WWW
« Reply #57 on: December 07, 2011, 10:32:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Pentax 645D, D FA 55mm, ISO 200, f/22. The scene. 100% crop (and I am unsure if it is from the plane of focus). A plot of a small section of the image which is also inset in the plot. The image is resolving features 12 micros or a less on the image plane.

Interesting - to me that image is too soft for my purposes.  I wonder if you have tried working this image using the detail slider in Lightroom or ACR or one of the other deconvolution programs?
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7427


WWW
« Reply #58 on: December 07, 2011, 10:44:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

The recommendation was to shoot it at 3 meter distance with a 100 mm lens, so it's hardly macro. The reason I suggested the Dollar bill is that it has a lot of fine detail and is quite challenging in many ways.

Of course, my posting was a one liner, but it refers to this posting: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=59978.msg484272#msg484272

Your point is very valid. Thirty times focal length is still a bit on the short side for testing lenses.

Best regards
Erik

Macro vs. Infinity lens performance are not the same. A lens may well be much sharper at infinity than it's closest focus distance (or vice versa). The sharper the lens the less diffraction can be tolerated if the goal is to get the sharpest image the system can produce.

Also in macro photography the effective aperture regarding diffraction are not the same as the marked aperture of the lens.

e.g. here is an extreme macro example where diffraction kicks in at a lens marking of f/2.8 and is severe by f/5.6.
http://www.captureintegration.com/2009/08/25/extreme-macro/

Yet another vote for real-world testing in situations as close to your actual intended use as possible.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off

Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7427


WWW
« Reply #59 on: December 08, 2011, 12:00:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Alan,

What is right or wrong can only you decide, if you are happy, you are happy.

Using the hyperfocal distance is not without problems. The question is which hyperfocal distance you use?! Hyperfocal distance and DoF essentially are about the acceptable amount of unsharpness. So hyperfocal distance calculation is essentially based on an acceptable amount of unsharpeness criterion, normally called CoC (Circle of Confusion). When lens is at hyperfocal distance, everything from infinity to half hyperfocal distance will be at least as sharp as the criterion.

The problem is that your eyes may be more demanding than the criterion.

Here is a very good article about adapting hyperfocal focusing for high resolution work: http://optechsdigital.com/Alpa_and_Hyperfocal.html

When I shot 67 on film I normally used the f/8 markers for depth of field when shooting at f/16.

Best regards
Erik



When I shoot Landscapes with my Mamiya RB67, I want everything in focus from front to rear.  So I work with the Hyperfocal distance, figure out what aperture I need, and then stop down one more stop for good measure.  Is this right?  Is this wrong?
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad