So I shouldn't be taking images like this one
There's so much more to a good image than getting every little pixel razor sharp, and diffraction is just one aspect of many that can rob you of detail. Would I shoot a spring tail at F16? Nope, but then again I wouldn't shoot one at all cause I think that they're boring
Quite - that's obviously a hopeless shot!
I'm guessing we're ALL grizzly enough to have done it a lot with film cameras, probably much the same way I started, with a reversed standard lens on tubes. NO options whatsoever, you just had to stop right down. We've all got boxes full of Kodachromes ...
Things move on though, I notice there are more cameras which are nearly capable of producing a stack of say "4K" images in a very short period for slow-mo movies, which may be just about short enough to deal with the movement problem. The potential for live stacking, and therefore bigger prints revealng more detail, is there. Even now, clever people using cold weather or "unfortunate" (for the animal) methods for producing very sharp stacks are making the artistic but rather blurred pictures look second rate. If we can get the old "more to it" aspects AND decent sharpness, then good.
Well good, they've got it right then . It's just the formula I quoted above.
Canon is imho less confusing than Nikon. If you have a micro Nikkor at around say 1:0.7 and a short tube, you have no readout of any meaningful aperture at all. Unless it's an old micro Nikkor, then you have, unless it's a very old micro Nikkor 55 f/3.5... !!