Camera with the best DOF
Apr 5, 2015 18:12:07 #
JohnStorck
Loc: Puuanahulu, Hawaii
Is the Sony A7S with a pixel pitch of 8.4 micron the best choice for reduced refraction and increased depth of field when shooting at F16 and above?
Suggestions? Comments?
Suggestions? Comments?
Apr 5, 2015 18:25:16 #
JohnStorck wrote:
Is the Sony A7S with a pixel pitch of 8.4 micron the best choice for reduced refraction and increased depth of field when shooting at F16 and above?
...Suggestions? Comments?
...Suggestions? Comments?
would you like to rephrase the question?
Apr 5, 2015 18:50:19 #
I suspect this is a fake ID of a banned former member (or a current member), looking to stir-up controversy and argument.
First and only post in seven months? Please do not feed the TROLL.
First and only post in seven months? Please do not feed the TROLL.
Apr 5, 2015 18:51:37 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
Nikonian72 wrote:
I suspect this is a fake ID of a former, banned member, looking to stir-up controversy and argument.
Or a post from the marketing department drumming up clicks and responses.
Apr 5, 2015 19:09:13 #
Nikonian72 wrote:
I suspect this is a fake ID of a former, banned member, looking to stir-up controversy and argument.
First and only post in seven months? Please do not feed the TROLL.
First and only post in seven months? Please do not feed the TROLL.
Oh crum and i was hoping i had found a potential customer for my highly refractive D40.
Apr 5, 2015 19:12:09 #
In fact if you make the photosite very large and there are very few pixels your DOF is going to be a lot because the circle of confusion is simply smaller than your pixel so everything from near to far has the same sharpness (although not really sharp due to large phototosite and few pixels)
Apr 5, 2015 19:16:02 #
Apr 5, 2015 19:21:52 #
oldtigger wrote:
Oh crum and i was hoping i had found a potential customer for my highly refractive D40.
Old, if your D40 has a 2 within a triangular arrow stamped on the bottom of it, then just simply put it into the big, blue curbside tote!! :lol: :lol:
SS
Apr 5, 2015 19:31:43 #
JohnStorck
Loc: Puuanahulu, Hawaii
Sorry, I'm not a troll.
Since diffraction is only noticeable when it's roughly 3-4 times the size of the pixel and the smallest spot or detail a lens can produce is 2.44 x the F Stop x the wavelength of light ( 2.44x 22 x.5 = 26.84) , I assumed a pixel size of 8.4 would allow an F Stop of F22 comfortably. The question is 1.) Does any one have any experience with this camera? 2.) Does anyone have experience with another camera that will produce superior depth of field with reduced diffraction at an F Stop of F 16 or greater?
Since diffraction is only noticeable when it's roughly 3-4 times the size of the pixel and the smallest spot or detail a lens can produce is 2.44 x the F Stop x the wavelength of light ( 2.44x 22 x.5 = 26.84) , I assumed a pixel size of 8.4 would allow an F Stop of F22 comfortably. The question is 1.) Does any one have any experience with this camera? 2.) Does anyone have experience with another camera that will produce superior depth of field with reduced diffraction at an F Stop of F 16 or greater?
Apr 5, 2015 19:37:28 #
JohnStorck wrote:
WinterRose! There you are (or his doppelganger). And you are still a troll.Sorry, I'm not a troll.
Apr 5, 2015 19:49:18 #
JohnStorck
Loc: Puuanahulu, Hawaii
Winterrose?!
Call me what ever names you wish. It's more of a reflection on who you are to call names when someone has a sincere question.
Call me what ever names you wish. It's more of a reflection on who you are to call names when someone has a sincere question.
Apr 5, 2015 20:00:39 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
JohnStorck wrote:
Winterrose?!
Call me what ever names you wish. It's more of a reflection on who you are to call names when someone has a sincere question.
Call me what ever names you wish. It's more of a reflection on who you are to call names when someone has a sincere question.
Walks like a duck, talks like a duck.
Apr 5, 2015 22:25:55 #
RWR
Loc: La Mesa, CA
JohnStorck wrote:
2.) Does anyone have experience with another camera that will produce superior depth of field with reduced diffraction at an F Stop of F 16 or greater?
Diffraction is not a major issue with my 300 f/9.0 Kern APO-Repro stopped down to f/18 or f/25 on my Graflex XL.
Apr 5, 2015 22:39:56 #
I will accept that it is a sincere question.
My sincere answer: You are too much a pixel peeper and you should just go take pictures. You sound like an engineer. ;-)
My sincere answer: You are too much a pixel peeper and you should just go take pictures. You sound like an engineer. ;-)
Apr 5, 2015 23:03:10 #
BebuLamar wrote:
In fact if you make the photosite very large and there are very few pixels your DOF is going to be a lot because the circle of confusion is simply smaller than your pixel so everything from near to far has the same sharpness (although not really sharp due to large phototosite and few pixels)
delightful approach to the problem but lets go the opposite direction.
In the past we have regarded DOF as a subjective condition dependent on the circle of confusion.
In todays digital world as the sensors approach and exceed the resolution of film, do we need to develop a new way to define DOF?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.