Lens diffraction in photography1/2/2024 ![]() ![]() ![]() The 'concern' about using a high MP sensor and a narrow aperture is simply that you aren't getting the full amount of detail the sensor on its own is capable of. It just is one of the two limits to the detail you can capture - the other is the diffraction, which is a property of the lens (+ settings). The sensor resolution does not affect how apparent diffraction is. Once you start zooming in (the same amount on both images), the lower MP one will start to look worse, as it will show pixels and debayering artifact or moire more easily. Will an f.16 picture taken with a 90MP camera be VISIBLY better than the same picture taken at f.16 with a 30 MP camera?ĭLA of the 90 MP camera should be around 4,5, if I'm not mistaken.Īny thoughts would be welcome!They will look identical when you view them at full size. To me, the only question which really matters is: What effect is there on light when it goes from one medium to another? Say, air to a piece of glass, or two pieces of glass with different refractory properties? The kind of stuff you’d find inside a lens. Period.” That is inaccurate, period.īut that was simply referring to life in general, now you limit that statement to “ So, light bending inside your camera is something you will never see.”, of course this again is false. So, light bending inside your camera is something you will never see.You said, and I quote “ And discussion of light that justifies some light property by saying that light "bends" is automatically incorrect. You should read about Einstein and Eddington and the extent that Eddington, Dyson, and Crommelin had to go to in 1919 to see the effect of light bending around our sun. Also, the Einsteinian prediction of the bending of light is actually a confirmation of the curvature of space predicted by Einstein. There is nowhere on earth that anyone or any instrumentation will ever see light bend. ![]() The force of gravity on light is so weak that the only observation of light bending is when it travels past a star or black hole in space. So, are you saying the lower picture is misleading, or is the effect it shows not what you refer to with the term bending? In the former case, how is the diffraction pattern explained? Do you have any good material for an alternate explanation?Įdit: Hadn't watched the video previously, but the laser beam producing a disk instead of a point is not a double slit, but it shows the same kind of 'bending'. And you can easily find tons of material on it, often with pictures that show the difference between 'particle' (no bending) and 'wave' (bending in the sense that there does not need to be a straight line of uninterrupted medium between the source of the light and the surface it hits) like this: The common explanation of how light is not (just) a particle and diffraction works conceptually is the double slit experiment. There is nowhere on earth that anyone or any instrumentation will ever see light bend.What exactly do you mean when you write of light bending? Are you saying that light behaves like a particle, traveling in a straight line from its source until it strikes a surface? I think few would argue the example at f2.8 was not sharp yet that equates to a non macro real world f17, more closed down than you 800 f11! But as I pointed out previously, the example shown was as extreme as it is possible to get even in a specialized situation and really can’t be replicated in non macro real world situations. ![]() Looking down a lens and trying to estimate anything is an exercise in futility as the lenses you are looking through change the very view of what it is you think you are seeing.Īs for how light is affected by such a ‘large hole’, well that is just the nature of waves and edges. If the fixed pupil is in the range of 5/8" or so, then how could light be appreciably affected by diffraction since that's such a big hole?The ‘fixed pupil’, apparent aperture opening, is 800/11 in mm, rounded out that means it is 73mm or 2.87 inches. Now I don't know for a fact how narrow the smallest light bundle is at the circular fixed iris, or pupil. It looks like (to me) the light bundle is around 5/8" or so wide, visually. Look down the barrel of the RF 800mm f11 lens (which has NO adjustable iris blades as it is always "wide open"). Could somebody please "illuminate" me on this particular issue? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |