asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA

The modern ZM is damned close to the original in rendering, and a lot higher contrast with far less flair.

There is still something really cool about using a lens that is almost 80-years-old on a two-year-old camera.

JohnStorck Loc: Puuanahulu, Hawaii

Thank you.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Diffraction (not "refraction" ) is determined by sensor size (extent of enlargement to make a certain print size), and resolution. Assuming a standardized print size and viewing distance (8x10"/8x12" print is typically what's used for comparison)... A 12MP FF camera will show initial effects of diffraction beginning at f/12.7, and more importantly diffraction limits extinction resolution at f/15.9. Smaller than that, you will see increased effect of diffraction.

For comparison, a 21MP FF camera shows initial effects at f/9.6 and limits at f/12. And a 20MP 1.6X APS-C camera will show initial effects at f/6.2 and limits at f/7.7 (this is largely because more enlargement is needed to make the same size print).

What this means is that there begins to be loss of fine detail at these apertures, with these size and resolution sensors. It gradually increases with smaller apertures and will be more apparent in larger prints viewed closer than usual.

Concerns about diffraction limits runs counter to desire to use a small aperture to increase depth of field. DoF is determined by focal length, aperture diameter and distance. In other words, DoF is lens-related, while diffraction is camera-sensor-related, and the two are somewhat at odds with each other.

But, there are other considerations. Lens resolving power, sensor resolution, the strength of anti-aliasing filter used on the camera's sensor are all factors that will determine image qualities and how enlargeable images will be. Even atmospheric conditions can come into play.

And there are "work-arounds". For example, focus stacking is a technique to increase depth of field in a finished image without resorting to extremely small apertures.

You can read a lot more about diffraction and its effects here:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography-2.htm

And here:
https://luminous-landscape.com/understanding-lens-diffraction/

I would recommend you set up and take a bunch of shots with your own cameras and lenses at various aperture, to become familiar with how they render fine detail in images, to find your own acceptable limits. Might be quite different than the theoretical limits. All you need is a nice, flat target with lots of fine detail (a brick wall or a weathered fence might work well).

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

Since DOF is strictly a lens issue and has nothing to do with the camera body, it depends on the lens you're using.
f/16 always produces a very long (wide) depth of field. To get a short DOF you need to be in the f/1.8 - f/2.8 range. The higher you go the longer (wider) the DOF goes.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

That is only true within a format and given a camera's resolution. The higher the resolution, the greater the resolving power - so if you have a great lens with high acuity, you will see potentially more detail in a high megapixel image, and consequently see more erosion of fine detail with smaller apertures. With my D800 and a 24-70mm lens, I already see diffraction at f8, but it is still usable to F11. At F11, my 12 mp D700 was sharp and crisp and just usable to F13 or so.

When you go to larger formats, diffraction related sharpness loss occurs at smaller apertures - F45 and smaller for 4x5.

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

WereWolf1967 Loc: Knoxville, TN

Ahh Yesss.

I thought about that one after I replied. The famous Nockton 1.5. Had one once on a Contax IIIa.

asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA

Different animal entirely.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

have to laugh at the new generation.
They ooh and ahh at the images of the early days.
Fall all over themselves purchasing plugin filters to emulate them.
Then rant and rave that the lenses are poor quality according to 'dxomark' and refuse to contaminate their modern cameras with such dinosaurs.

asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA

Yeah, old lenses are a lot of fun. I just bought a Russian Helios 81N for my Nikon Df. Its a 1980s 50mm f/2 that I paid all of $30 for and it is even native Nikon mount with AI coupling. MUCH nicer than the 50mm f/1.8G that came with my Df.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Tell me, how is it paranoid to suspect you of creating other profiles to create mischeif and lies, when you have been proven and exposed, so publically, so many times, doing exactly that, in the past?
Your twisting and flailing when outed, really are a joke.
And if you take note, it wasn't me who exposed you this time, it was another long term member of the community who spotted and exposed you, yet you attack me and call me paranoid.LOL
Have a nice day Rob.

winterrose Loc: Kyneton, Victoria, Australia

"Exposed" me eh? If you think I would make a mistake such as referring to "refraction" in that context then you really must be as big an idiot as Nikonian. You're both seeing monsters lurking in shadows. Just stick to playing with the other noops who frequent nightski's cozy little club and stop making an idiot of yourself if that is possible.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Well of course you wouldn't .... not now anyway ..... because amfoto has exposed it as an incorrect context ... and you would not dare argue or disagree with him ... because you know that he would make you look so stupid so quickly that you would have to crawl under your rock again until the embarassment wore off again.

winterrose Loc: Kyneton, Victoria, Australia

Idiot.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Your eloquence and profundity only exceeds your intellect.