[LeRolls]

DA 15

---

Last edited by LeRolls; 11-19-2015 at 12:57 AM.

[Canada_Rockies]

Lovely, Christopher. The lighting is just perfect. You must have a really good camera

[csa]

Wow! That photo is absolutely stunning!!!

[rayallen]

Lovely, Christopher. The lighting is just perfect. You must have a really good camera

He does. He has a K-3.

[LeRolls]

Lovely, Christopher. The lighting is just perfect. You must have a really good camera

Thank you. I got lucky that the sun popped out for a few minutes after the storm before dipping below some clouds again about five minutes later. Yes, half the time the K-3 takes the pictures all by itself. Doesn't even need me. Helluva camera that one!

Wow! That photo is absolutely stunning!!!

I'm gonna assume that you mean my picture and just say thanks.

He does. He has a K-3.

Yes, the K-3 punches well above it's weight class in many regards.

[goldenarrow]

Thank you. I got lucky that the sun popped out for a few minutes after the storm before dipping below some clouds again about five minutes later. Yes, half the time the K-3 takes the pictures all by itself. Doesn't even need me. Helluva camera that one!

Sure helps to live in Florida!!! I'm jealous....

[IchabodCrane]

Thank you. I got lucky that the sun popped out for a few minutes after the storm before dipping below some clouds again about five minutes later. Yes, half the time the K-3 takes the pictures all by itself. Doesn't even need me. Helluva camera that one!



I'm gonna assume that you mean my picture and just say thanks.



Yes, the K-3 punches well above it's weight class in many regards.

Agree, it was a great shot! Now, can I get some coaching? You chose f/16 for aperture yet I've seen in various posts that one shouldn't set an aperture that small to avoid diffraction. Can you walk us through how you settled on shooting parameters? Thanks in advance.

[Canada_Rockies]

Agree, it was a great shot! Now, can I get some coaching? You chose f/16 for aperture yet I've seen in various posts that one shouldn't set an aperture that small to avoid diffraction. Can you walk us through how you settled on shooting parameters? Thanks in advance.

[RANT]
Pixel peepers often worry about the degradation of an image for a zillion crazy reasons. Diffraction is one of the silly reasons. Yes, diffraction will reduce the detail and contrast of an image. I just had a quick look at the DoF Pro app on my phone, and a 12 mm lens shows the diffraction limit half way between f/8 and f/11 at hyperfocal distance. But we are talking about two different things. The app is great, but I disagree with the diffraction limit they put on it.

Diffraction does degrade an image slightly. Oh, really? That does not include everything one needs to know about the limits of an image. There is an awful lot of overly technical analysis out there. Some of it sounds as if it should make sense but does not. The diffraction limit is one of them. Let me give you my thoughts about it, and you can then shoot me down.

240 dpi is enough for a print. Pixel peepers say that 300 dpi is the ideal, but ... I have printed a K10 image at 20x30 inches, and it was, to put it bluntly, gorgeous. The image from a K10 is 3872x2592 pixels. At 300 dpi, that is a clean print 12.9" by 8.64" where each an every pixel will be distinct if the image is taken using the MTF program: the sharpest f/stop in the bunch. My best selling image is 16x24 inches in gallery wrap, which means one has to add another inch each end for the wrap, making the actual print 18x26 inches. OMG! you cannot print that big!!!!

My take on all this? Go for the depth of field if you need it. How about the K3? 6016x4000 at 300 dpi is a clean perfect pixel peeper special 20x13.3 inches. Use 240 dpi and the perfection goes out to 6016/240 = 25 by 4000/240 = 16.7 inches.

And then you go for depth of field. What is it, really? It is an 8x10 inch print viewed from 10 inches away that looks sharp. That's the depth of field. It is based on the resolution of your eye.

FINAL ANALYSIS: To heck with the pixel peeping idiots. If you need f/22 with your 10mm lens, use it. If you look at a 20x16.7 inch print from 10 inches away, it might not be absolutely crisp, but who in their right mind looks at a 20x16.7 inch print from 10 inches away?
[/RANT]

[normhead]

In the filed, I have found the practical limit to APS-c is ƒ22. I have several times shot multiple frames at different apertures from 2.8 to 22 and there have been a few instances where ƒ22 is simply the best image. Period hands down, no spin.

For the techies here's why that is true. The big issue in prints and images with regards to subject clarity is resolution. If you shoot at ƒ4 or ƒ5.6 , the sweet spots for subject resolution, it is quite possible 75% of your subject will be out of focus. You actually have a better image, and get more resolution accepting an image that is mildly reduced on resolution, than accept huge out of focus areas that have no technical resolution.

The difference between ƒ5.6 and ƒ8 in terms of focus point resolution is probably not detectable by the human eye on a web size image or a print, although it is measurable on test patterns.

The diffraction limit determines where the lens will be sharpest, but when combined with Depth of Filed is only one of the factors in determining how to get the sharpest subject. You always have to make trade-offs. I've never had an APS-c image that was good at ƒ32... but that is the only setting on APS-c that can't in the right circumstances give you the best possible image.

[WPRESTO]

When I gave a program at the local camera club on macro, where DOF is a real problem, I advised them that the apparent detail gained by going to f16 or even f22 far outweighed the technical loss of IQ caused by diffraction. For macro, the greater DOF imparts a visual impression of greater detail & sharpness, even if pixel-peeping reveals softening caused by diffraction.

[Scorpio71GR]

Experimenting with some high ISO
DA*16-50 ISO 8000


ISO 100


My need for full frame keeps diminishing with the K3, despite what the ASP-C haters say.

[Canada_Rockies]

Experimenting with some high ISO
DA*16-50 ISO 8000My need for full frame keeps diminishing with the K3, despite what the ASP-C haters say.

I will say again - having said it in other places - that the FF vs APS-C argument was 120 vs 135 in my earlier days. Exactly the same problems. As the new films get finer and finer quality the difference becomes meaningless for most people. If I were a pro wedding shooter, it would be the 645Z, not a so-called full frame camera. (I think full frame is 11x14 inches, myself). I think I have to add curmudgeon to my signature ...

[zzeitg]

FA* 80-200

[LeRolls]

[BCtoad]

Your best yet I think.