Ah, Moose the philosopher! I suspect you are correct on all points.
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] (OM) Small apertures and digital lenses
> On 9/11/2011 9:10 AM, Jim Nichols wrote:
>> Brian,
>>
>> Playing the devil's advocate, is it possible the f/22 lens setting forced
>> the E-3 shutter to slow down enough that un-noticed camera motion caused
>> the
>> softness?
>
> You may advocate for the Devil all you want - it's gonna be soft at f22.
>
> I tested the 135/4.5 on film, on a sturdy tripod. The sort of calculations
> Chuck so generously provides are useful, but
> sometimes I just want to see in person.
>
> F16 was pretty good, at f22, I could see softening at the place of focus,
> but the trade-off for more sharpness through
> DOF in my highly 3D subject wasn't bad. F32 was just soft, no way around
> it. I haven't used f32 since.
>
> The rough 4/3s equivalents for the above would be f16=>f8, f22 = f11 and
> f32 = f16. So at f22, Brian had gone beyond the
> f32 on FF film that I found unacceptably soft, to the eq. of f44 on film.
>
> But, soft! how light through yonder lens breaks.
>
> ... we see through a glass, softly.
>
> Through such small aperture
> My sensor loses its resolution
> And wanders purposeless
> Through fields of dreamlike
> Light and shadow
>
> F64 Moose
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|