How Much Resolution Do You Want or Need? Read OP before posting.

esquilo

Erm, Dx - smaller sensor, but higher pixel density - effect of all that on diffraction - needs some thinking about. I regularly use my D7100 down to f13 and occasionally f16 for my macro shots and never had a problem.

With my D7100 and 16-85 I can see some very minor diffraction at f/16, so I rearly stop down more than that for landscape photos. For macro it's a different matter. Then it's the DoF and available light that draws the limits, not diffraction.

spraynpray

I'm not so sure about that. Macro is about detail (or should be), and diffraction is the enemy of sharpness so you still need sharpness as well as optimal placement of the depth of field. I usually use flash to get enough light to show detail for shots like this - view it large on Flickr:

donaldejose

Ths 35 and 50mm Sigma Art lenses seem to be at their sharpest around f4 to f5.6 so if you want to capture the most detail that is where you should shoot.

WestEndFoto

Erm, Dx - smaller sensor, but higher pixel density - effect of all that on diffraction - needs some thinking about. I regularly use my D7100 down to f13 and occasionally f16 for my macro shots and never had a problem.

The table illustrates it.

WestEndFoto

Ths 35 and 50mm Sigma Art lenses seem to be at their sharpest around f4 to f5.6 so if you want to capture the most detail that is where you should shoot.

Probably f/5.6. A diffraction limited lens at f/4.0 is pretty damn sharp. But I would love to be proven wrong. Most recent lens sharpness advances are wide open sharpness, not stop down sharpness where many lenses are already really sharp. My 30+ year old 28mm AIS (in design, I bought it brand new a hear ago) continues to astound me about how good lenses were back then. Wide open? Meh.....

haroldp

The two main reasons for much better wide open performance on fast lenses today are :

- Computer assisted design
- Aspherical lens element were hideously expensive to produce. CNC and casting techniques used today make the much more available as a design option.

It should be noted that as some abberations are easily corrected digitally, designers can concentrate on those that aren't

... H

manhattanboy

The two main reasons for much better wide open performance on fast lenses today are :

- Computer assisted design
- Aspherical lens element were hideously expensive to produce. CNC and casting techniques used today make the much more available as a design option.

It should be noted that as some abberations are easily corrected digitally, designers can concentrate on those that aren't

... H

The one thing that still sucks is VR on high res sensors. There is just enough blur from the VR moving lens element to be noticeable when you zoom in 200%.

donaldejose

Why does anyone need to zoom in 200%? Who will ever view an image like that? I don't understand why it is a problem.

spraynpray

I agree with you there Donald, 1:1 is plenty IMHO. Why 2:1 @manhattanboy?

WestEndFoto

Why does anyone need to zoom in 200%? Who will ever view an image like that? I don't understand why it is a problem.

Then why do we spend so much time fretting over how sharp our lenses are?

spraynpray

Can you point out the diffraction on this shot, it is f16 on a 24mp DX?:

rmp

I have read a little about: focus stacking, panorama-stitching, and high-dynamic-range merging. Is there any reason that these three software-functions cannot be merged into the software inside a camera? If they can, the number of megapixels we need/want can be reduced -- i.e. here comes the next cell phone camera. :-)

WestEndFoto

Can you point out the diffraction on this shot, it is f16 on a 24mp DX?:

I am sure that if you had an identical shot, except in f/8.0, that you could see side by side, you could. I find diffraction obvious when I look for it.

haroldp

I have read a little about: focus stacking, panorama-stitching, and high-dynamic-range merging. Is there any reason that these three software-functions cannot be merged into the software inside a camera? If they can, the number of megapixels we need/want can be reduced -- i.e. here comes the next cell phone camera. :-)

Panorama stitching and hdr already are built in functions. Focus stacking requires a stable platform and subject.

... H

Ironheart

I have read a little about: focus stacking, panorama-stitching, and high-dynamic-range merging. Is there any reason that these three software-functions cannot be merged into the software inside a camera? If they can, the number of megapixels we need/want can be reduced -- i.e. here comes the next cell phone camera. :-)

Panorama stitching and hdr already are built in functions. Focus stacking requires a stable platform and subject.

... H

I know plenty of folks that do focus stacking hand-held on live insects. Just sayin'

Ironheart

Can you point out the diffraction on this shot, it is f16 on a 24mp DX?:

I am sure that if you had an identical shot, except in f/8.0, that you could see side by side, you could. I find diffraction obvious when I look for it.

You are only giving us 1MP to look at. If you upload even 6 or 8 MP version, we should start to see some diffraction. According to the tables on LuLa we should start to see it at 3MP for green/yellow light. By cleverly only giving us 1MP, diffraction has been eliminated, as we are well below the Nyquest limit.

WestEndFoto

Can you point out the diffraction on this shot, it is f16 on a 24mp DX?:

I am sure that if you had an identical shot, except in f/8.0, that you could see side by side, you could. I find diffraction obvious when I look for it.

You are only giving us 1MP to look at. If you upload even 6 or 8 MP version, we should start to see some diffraction. According to the tables on LuLa we should start to see it at 3MP for green/yellow light. By cleverly only giving us 1MP, diffraction has been eliminated, as we are well below the Nyquest limit.

Yeah, I thought of that too but did not bother to look to see how big the file was as I did not have a basis of comparison. Both parameters need to be fulfilled to perform such a test.

Paperman

It also means that if Nikon does make a higher resolution sensor (>36 megapixel) and you intend on taking advantage of it, you better be shooting at wider than f/5.6

The D800 user manual was probably the first ever DSLR manual warning about diffraction and advising owners not to go past f8 for best results

P.S. Sorry guys, I was looking at the previous page when I wrote the comment . I see plenty of water has passed under the bridge since then :-)

Lennon

There is no such thing as too many pixels. It is a ridiculous premise.

haroldp

There is no such thing as too many pixels. It is a ridiculous premise.

Yes... Thank You.

The only time it is an issue is if it costs you something else that you care about.

My D810 is a better high ISO performer than my D700 and cycles faster. I do not care about storage. In any circumstance or with any lens, the D810 is either better than the D700 or equal, therefore there is no case where more pixels hurts, therefore there cannot be too many. You can sometimes have unneeded or unused data but you can never have too much.

... H

donaldejose

Don't forget if you have a D800 or D810 and are just shooting some family snapshots or vacation snapshots you can always pull a "Ken Rockwell": since you don't need RAW or high quality you can set your camera to basic Jpeg and let the camera do the "megapixel reduction" as you shoot. I do this when someone wants me to take some shots for them to post on facebook. It saves the step of reducing file size in post processing. If you feel you will need to recover shadow detail more than one stop or make other strong changes in your image you can shoot RAW. I often shoot RAW + Large Fine JPEG sending each to a different card in camera. Then I work with the Large Fine JPEG file first and usually never need to make extensive changes requiring me to go back and start with the RAW image.

haroldp

When shooting casual photos on a d810, if I have enough wide range, I will switch to DX mode at 16mp (still raw).

donaldejose

Good idea haroldp. There are many ways to reduce file size with a large megapixel sensor. We should not forget that.

donaldejose

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT4-nKdEbxc