kcbrown Cream of the Crop  5,384 posts Likes: 2 Joined Mar 2007 Location: Silicon Valley More info | Dec 03, 2008 01:23 | #1 ...then I think I can live with that!  Doesn't look very diffraction limited to me!  "There are some things that money can't buy, but they aren't Ls and aren't worth having" -- Shooter-boy
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jrntr6 Member 233 posts Joined Jul 2008 Location: Canadian in Canada More info | Dec 03, 2008 02:13 | #2 Damn you!!! I had just decided I was going to put off buying a 50D in order to take an extra vacation... but now you've got me wanting this again.... Jeff
LOG IN TO REPLY |
kcbrown THREAD STARTER Cream of the Crop 5,384 posts Likes: 2 Joined Mar 2007 Location: Silicon Valley More info | Dec 03, 2008 02:22 | #3 jrntr6 wrote in post #6803144  Damn you!!! I had just decided I was going to put off buying a 50D in order to take an extra vacation... but now you've got me wanting this again.... LOL! "There are some things that money can't buy, but they aren't Ls and aren't worth having" -- Shooter-boy
LOG IN TO REPLY |
bsaber I have no idea what's going on  3,536 posts Likes: 3 Joined Aug 2007 Location: Los Angeles, CA More info | Dec 03, 2008 02:40 | #4 jrntr6 wrote in post #6803144 Damn you!!! I had just decided I was going to put off buying a 50D in order to take an extra vacation... but now you've got me wanting this again.... Stop lying, you knew you were going to get the 50D first
LOG IN TO REPLY |
LarryWeinman Goldmember 1,438 posts Likes: 66 Joined Jul 2006 More info | Dec 03, 2008 08:15 | #5 You read allot about diffraction in forums but the reality is that there is only a very very minor loss from stop to stop. I have found f 22 to be quite usable on my 50D and when shooting at ISO 100 I gett amazing detail at small apertures. 7D Mark II 6D 100mm f 2.8 macro 180mm f 3.5 macro, MP-E-65 300mm f 2.8 500mm f4 Tokina 10-17mm fisheye 10-22mm 17-55mm 24-105mm 70-300mm 70-200 f 2.8 Mk II 100-400mm Mk II 1.4 TCIII 2X TCIII 580EX II 430 EX II MT 24 EX Sigma 150-600
LOG IN TO REPLY |
PaulB Goldmember 1,543 posts Likes: 2 Joined Apr 2003 Location: Leeds, Yorkshire More info | Diffraction effects are grossly overestimated.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Tsmith Formerly known as Bluedog_XT  10,429 posts Likes: 26 Joined Jul 2005 Location: South_the 601 More info | Dec 03, 2008 08:33 | #7 PaulB wrote in post #6804212 Diffraction effects are grossly overestimated. Well said and think just cause of this I'm going to walk away from an opportunity to photography a possible scene if I need a long shutter speed to capture it. Funny thing is there is probably those that would.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
beepclick Goldmember  1,850 posts Joined Mar 2008 More info | Dec 03, 2008 08:34 | #8 I have shot my 60MM Macro at f/32 with sharp results. But, then, I didn't print it at 20 x 30, either. Gear https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=635450
LOG IN TO REPLY |
basroil Cream of the Crop  8,015 posts Likes: 2 Joined Mar 2006 Location: STL/Clayton, MO| NJ More info | Dec 03, 2008 08:54 | #9 Sure looks soft to me.... compare that to a shot at f5.6 from a 35L and you'll see why the 50d is diffraction limited. It's not about loosing detail, it's about gaining useless information. I don't hate macs or OSX, I hate people and statements that portray them as better than anything else. Macs are A solution, not THE solution. Get a good desktop i7 with Windows 7 and come tell me that sucks for photo or video editing.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
PaulB Goldmember 1,543 posts Likes: 2 Joined Apr 2003 Location: Leeds, Yorkshire More info | Dec 03, 2008 09:40 | #10 basroil wrote in post #6804372 Sure looks soft to me.... compare that to a shot at f5.6 from a 35L and you'll see why the 50d is diffraction limited. It's not about loosing detail, it's about gaining useless information. Tosh!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
eryk Goldmember  2,055 posts Likes: 1 Joined Apr 2005 More info | Dec 03, 2008 10:10 | #11 basroil wrote in post #6804372 Sure looks soft to me.... compare that to a shot at f5.6 from a 35L and you'll see why the 50d is diffraction limited. It's not about loosing detail, it's about gaining useless information. guess i wasnt the only one that thought the photo was soft. id expect more from a 24-105L Canon EOS 5Dmk3 //
LOG IN TO REPLY |
kcbrown THREAD STARTER Cream of the Crop 5,384 posts Likes: 2 Joined Mar 2007 Location: Silicon Valley More info | Dec 03, 2008 13:36 | #12 Hmm.... And here's a 100% crop of one taken with my 30D with my 24-105L at f/8. Processed with DPP with sharpness of 5. This definitely shouldn't be diffraction limited:  I do see what you mean -- in comparison the 50D shot is slightly soft. Ever so slightly. If I increase the sharpness to 7 or 8 in DPP on the first shot I get what looks to me to be roughly equivalent sharpness. Now, if I'm not mistaken, the AA filter on the 30D isn't as strong as the one on the 50D, so you have to do more sharpening on the 50D just to get equivalent results. I'm not sure how much of a difference there is, however. I hardly ever shoot with my 50D anymore, and I've never done any processing of my 30D shots with DPP until now, so I don't know what sharpening level is needed on the 30D to counter the effects of the AA filter there. Additionally, Photozone shows the 24-105 at 70mm dropping in resolution a bit after f/8, and that's on a 350D, which has the same pixel density as the 30D. The 50D has enough resolution that the additional softness should come through a bit, and I think it has here. Anyway, my ultimate point here is that I was at f/11 ... way beyond the "diffraction limit" for the 50D, and am still getting quite decent sharpness. It's good enough that I'm not at all concerned about using narrow apertures when the situation calls for it, even on my 50D. "There are some things that money can't buy, but they aren't Ls and aren't worth having" -- Shooter-boy
LOG IN TO REPLY |
basroil Cream of the Crop 8,015 posts Likes: 2 Joined Mar 2006 Location: STL/Clayton, MO| NJ More info | Dec 03, 2008 14:01 | #13 kcbrown wrote in post #6806014 Anyway, my ultimate point here is that I was at f/11 ... way beyond the "diffraction limit" for the 50D, and am still getting quite decent sharpness. It's good enough that I'm not at all concerned about using narrow apertures when the situation calls for it, even on my 50D. Really, you're getting the same sharpness as the 30d, just that it also includes more gradients between. What happens when you do any software sharpening is that you ignore the gradients and try to find edges. Means that you have to use a lower threshold to sharpen it, which also means you now sharpen noise a lot more. And what is more, there is no fine details between the sharpened edges, at least not much more (there might be some extra detail in the blues, but definitely none in the green or red channels) than the 30d. Diffraction isn't really limiting anyone, it just means you shouldn't expect to see each and every hair. I don't hate macs or OSX, I hate people and statements that portray them as better than anything else. Macs are A solution, not THE solution. Get a good desktop i7 with Windows 7 and come tell me that sucks for photo or video editing.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
pieq314 Goldmember 1,102 posts Joined Apr 2006 More info | Dec 03, 2008 14:05 | #14 I do agree that the 50D photo is sharp enough at the pixel level. This means the additional 7 MPs over 30D are not wasted. Canon 1D Mk III/5D2, Sigma 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX, Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS, Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4 EX, Canon 85/1.8, Canon 100/2.8 IS macro, Canon 135/2, Sigma 150-500 OS, Canon 500 f/4 IS
LOG IN TO REPLY |
basroil Cream of the Crop 8,015 posts Likes: 2 Joined Mar 2006 Location: STL/Clayton, MO| NJ More info | Dec 03, 2008 14:37 | #15 pieq314 wrote in post #6806193 I do agree that the 50D photo is sharp enough at the pixel level. This means the additional 7 MPs over 30D are not wasted. I really don't think you get the point... I don't hate macs or OSX, I hate people and statements that portray them as better than anything else. Macs are A solution, not THE solution. Get a good desktop i7 with Windows 7 and come tell me that sucks for photo or video editing.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is zachary24 1431 guests, 108 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
