Jump to content




The above adverts really do help Fotozones. Please click on them if they are relevant to you. Not seeing them? Just exclude Fotozones from your ad blocker. Thanks!


Photo
- - - - -

Is the V1 diffraction limited for small aperture macro use?


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Foveola

Foveola

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 602 posts
  • LocationSouthwest Michigan
  • Edit my pics?:Yes

Posted 19 October 2012 - 16:25

I have a V1 and want to try it for macro work, hoping that the greater DOF will be helpful over my full frame cameras. However, I am concerned that the diffraction limits of the high density sensor will negate any increased DOF benefits compared with my D4.

I was planning on trying a Tamron 90mm or Nikon 105 VR macro lens with the FT1, to get the type of working distance helpful for butterfly work.

Your thoughts on this are greatly appreciated.

Cheers

Randy

#2 Alaun

Alaun

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 273 posts
  • LocationBonn

Posted 19 October 2012 - 16:39

Maybe a picture is helpful?

I think, this was done with open aperture

_DSC1328.jpg

#3 Foveola

Foveola

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 602 posts
  • LocationSouthwest Michigan
  • Edit my pics?:Yes

Posted 19 October 2012 - 16:43

Alaun:

Thanks for the picture. looks pretty sharp here.

Perhaps I should have been more specific. I would like to be able to use f/16 or smaller to get more DOF for the butterflies. This helps with the full frame bodies, but I am concerned about diffraction eroding the benefits of the extra DOF on the small sensor V1.

Cheers

Randy

#4 Alaun

Alaun

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 273 posts
  • LocationBonn

Posted 19 October 2012 - 16:59

The max I found is something with F10 and the 200mm Macro

_DSC2518.jpg




and crop at F9 in BW
tbp_DSC2447crop.jpg


As far as I remember, going far beyond diffraction started to creep in

Edited by Alaun, 19 October 2012 - 17:03 .


#5 nfoto

nfoto

    Fierce Bear of the North

  • Administrators
  • 16,649 posts
  • LocationOslo, Norway
  • Edit my pics?:No

Posted 19 October 2012 - 18:11

Why would you get more "DOF" with the V1, using the same lens that also fits FX? Makes absolutely no sense. At the same magnification "DOF" stays the same. Format size is not a parameter in the equation.

You must have changed a variable in the equation. I suspect you overlooked the magnification factor. If you think in terms of "format filling", the smaller format uses lower image magnification but then you easily run into empty magnification of detail when the capture subsequently is enlarged. So there is no free lunch.

As to diffraction, it is always there no matter what format or aperture setting you have. But some lenses perform much better than others when stopped far down. Image and lighting contrast also play decisive roles.
Bjørn

#6 Larry

Larry

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 2,820 posts
  • LocationManila, Philippines
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 19 October 2012 - 18:41

I have a V1 and want to try it for macro work, hoping that the greater DOF will be helpful over my full frame cameras. However, I am concerned that the diffraction limits of the high density sensor will negate any increased DOF benefits compared with my D4.

I was planning on trying a Tamron 90mm or Nikon 105 VR macro lens with the FT1, to get the type of working distance helpful for butterfly work.

Your thoughts on this are greatly appreciated.

Cheers

Randy


Randy, a 10mp 2.7x crop sensor has about the same pixel density as a 73mp full-frame sensor. Using this figure and computing the diffraction onset using the standard diffraction calculator, one would get the following results:

Diffraction may become visible at f/5.2
Diffraction limits extinction resolution: f/6.5
Diffraction limits standard grayscale resolution: f/7.7


Please check out the pertinent and very useful notes on this link:

http://www.cambridge...otography-2.htm

Edited by Larry, 19 October 2012 - 18:46 .


#7 Foveola

Foveola

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 602 posts
  • LocationSouthwest Michigan
  • Edit my pics?:Yes

Posted 19 October 2012 - 19:27

Bjorn:

I didn't factor in the magnification factor correctly, and was confusing the shorter focal length lenses normally used on smaller sensor cameras to obtain equivalent magnification,and the subsequent increased DOF from that, versus using the same lens on the different sensor size cameras, and adjusting the working distance to obtain the same magnification.

The diffraction issue however is still a concern for me, because of the high pixel density of the V1, and as Larry so nicely showed, this would seem to be a real concern. I appreciate your point about the importance of different lenses and how they handle diffraction at smaller apertures.

I will try to be more accurate in the future. :)

Cheers

Randy

#8 nfoto

nfoto

    Fierce Bear of the North

  • Administrators
  • 16,649 posts
  • LocationOslo, Norway
  • Edit my pics?:No

Posted 19 October 2012 - 19:46

Larry: Playing with numbers is always entertaining. But the picture will provide the answer one needs.


Diffraction might not be so easy to spot unless you do careful comparisons. The increased smearing of fine detail can go unnoticed otherwise, until it becomes so severe that everything appears blurred of course.
Bjørn

#9 crowecg

crowecg

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 826 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 22:37

My experience with my D7000 is that I can get reasonable results a couple of stops beyond the theoretical diffraction limit. I do see softening when I close the aperture right down, but also struggle to get enough light at such apertures, so motion blur could also come into it. I'm tending to shoot handheld shots of small bugs and spiders.

If I recall, the figures above suggest diffraction is a stop or so earlier on the V1 than the D7000.

#10 Larry

Larry

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 2,820 posts
  • LocationManila, Philippines
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 20 October 2012 - 04:18

Larry: Playing with numbers is always entertaining. But the picture will provide the answer one needs.


Diffraction might not be so easy to spot unless you do careful comparisons. The increased smearing of fine detail can go unnoticed otherwise, until it becomes so severe that everything appears blurred of course.


I understand. I provided the figures to provide a starting point where it would theoretically begin but testing and the comparison of the test photos would indeed be the best gauge as also indicated in the notes in the link. There is thus no disagreement but rather an amplification of the point you made.

Edited by Larry, 20 October 2012 - 07:22 .


#11 Tejpor

Tejpor

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 303 posts

Posted 20 October 2012 - 09:38

With the truly excellent 45mm PC-E, diffraction is (very) visible on a D7000 at f11. I'm fairly critical though ;)

I wonder if the V1 has electronic shutter. If so, then it will fare better than the DSLRs from an usability standpoint!

#12 Anthony

Anthony

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 2,629 posts
  • LocationLondon UK

Posted 20 October 2012 - 09:52

I wonder if the V1 has electronic shutter. If so, then it will fare better than the DSLRs from an usability standpoint!


The V1 has both a mechanical and an electronic shutter. There are some limitations on the electronic shutter which may make some prefer the mechanical shutter except at faster speeds; the mechanical shutter can achieve only (!) 5fps.

#13 nfoto

nfoto

    Fierce Bear of the North

  • Administrators
  • 16,649 posts
  • LocationOslo, Norway
  • Edit my pics?:No

Posted 20 October 2012 - 10:00

Larry: To elaborate these aspects further: the figures are output results from a model and we cannot apriori assume the model is valid.
Bjørn

#14 Tejpor

Tejpor

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 303 posts

Posted 20 October 2012 - 11:53

The V1 has both a mechanical and an electronic shutter. There are some limitations on the electronic shutter which may make some prefer the mechanical shutter except at faster speeds; the mechanical shutter can achieve only (!) 5fps.


That is very good!
For macro the electronic shutter is unbeatable as this means no vibrations, so you can use any shutter speed...

#15 schwett

schwett

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,230 posts
  • LocationSan Francisco
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 21 October 2012 - 02:38

it's also nice that the cheap little ml-l3 remote works with the 1 series.

my experience shooting the f-mount micro nikkors on the 1 is that color fringing around highlight areas (presumably made much more evident by the super tiny pixel pitch) makes wide open results less than optimum. stopping down past f/8 starts to introduce some softness which i presume is diffraction.

watch out for noise - even at iso 100 out of focus areas will clearly show luminance noise.

test shot with the 60mm f/2.8g at f/3:
Posted Image


100% at f/3
Posted Image

100% at f/5.6
Posted Image

100% at f/11
Posted Image

the 200mm f/4d at f/4.5
Posted Image

100% at f/4.5
Posted Image

100% at f/8
Posted Image

100% at f/14
Posted Image

100% at f/22 (couldn't set long enough shutter speed, increased noise is from pushing exposure in ACR, and diffraction has by now reduced the result to mush)
Posted Image
http://photo.sfmthd.org/ [under construction]

#16 schwett

schwett

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,230 posts
  • LocationSan Francisco
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 21 October 2012 - 02:43

on the 60mm, the f/11 shot is clearly softer than the f/5.6 shot - most evident in the texture of the front edge of the black casing of the chip.

on the 200mm, sharpness appears about the same between f/5.6 and f/8, and then reducing in the f/14 shot, but the improved color fidelity around the highlight edges (no nasty green and pink!) makes the f/14 shot perhaps the most usable.

i wouldn't say any of these are particularly good results - the noise levels would probably keep me from using this combo, at least under these lighting conditions. more light might make a different story.
http://photo.sfmthd.org/ [under construction]

#17 Foveola

Foveola

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 602 posts
  • LocationSouthwest Michigan
  • Edit my pics?:Yes

Posted 23 October 2012 - 15:07

Thanks everyone for the input, I appreciate your thoughts and expertise. I will give it a try soon, and report any worthwhile observations!

Cheers

Randy

#18 Eb Mueller

Eb Mueller

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,269 posts
  • LocationChilliwack, BC, Canada
  • Edit my pics?:Yes

Posted 23 October 2012 - 15:37

You might have a look at these, posted some time ago - all with the V1 and 105 VR. There are some stitched, stacked and a single exposure, at f/22 and maximum magnification. Diffraction is inevitable, but is it really a problem practically or aesthetically? I think not, if one gets the shot.

http://www.fotozones...acro-stitching/
Eb Mueller
British Columbia, Canada
http://www.pbase.com/emueller




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



Receive a FREE CAMERA BAG from Think Tank Photo


An appeal to all Fotozones visitors: please help me to keep this site going by starting your gear purchases using any one of the affiliate links shown below:

Amazon.com | Amazon.co.uk | Amazon.de | Adorama.com | thinkTank Photo | DigitalRev.com | OWC | B&H or Donate via PayPal

Starting your shopping here doesn't cost you anything more, but by using the links above (or any others found on the site) you are advising the affiliate that you support this website. This results in a small commission that helps with the running costs. If your preferred outlet isn't among those listed above you can also support the site by making a donation of any amount via PayPal (no PayPal account required). Any donation will be most appreciated.