Here's what I found: "Typically the sensor size is 1/5.5 that of 35mm film, thus the limit for the onset of visible diffraction limit for 12 megapixels is f/2.4. Since only one small-sensor camera currently has a lens that fast, this means that small cameras are always diffraction limited and that megapixel counts much above about 12—which is currently offered—are almost pointless. This observation explains why typical small cameras do not even allow f-stops smaller than f/8: at f/8 the onset-of-diffraction limit is 450 lines, corresponding to about 1.5 megapixels.
The author has also observed this effect: pictures taken at f/8 are visibly, disappointingly less sharp than those taken at wider apertures. I have started using a pocket camera with manual override to assure that I use apertures wider than about f/5, and preferable much wider, whenever possible." The site is: http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/guest/physical_limits.html On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Steven Desjardins <drd1...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's an interesting point. Mu43 lenses hit their sweet spot around f4 > and diffraction effects are rearing their head above f8. I may go > agoogling about this. > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 12:21 PM, P. J. Alling > <webstertwenty...@gmail.com> wrote: >> It's a recording device. If he lenses are good then everything in you photo >> will be sharp, no distracting out of focus areas. Now you can take this >> with a grain of salt, because it's quite likely I did the math wrong but the >> f 1.9 Standard (8mm), lens would have the same lens opening diameter, wide >> open as a 35mm lens would have at f ~147. Not to mention that the 35mm lens >> on an APS-C sized sensor, (or film for that matter), would be suffering from >> serious diffraction effects. I don't see how diffraction isn't a major >> problem for the Q camera system. >> >> On 7/19/2011 7:50 AM, Steven Desjardins wrote: >>> >>> It's overpriced of course, but I actually think it could be a very >>> creative tool. That K7 and all its wonders are often sitting in the >>> bag at home. >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Christine Aguila<christ...@caguila.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Neato! Thanks for posting, Godfrey! Cheers, Christine >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Godfrey >>>> DiGiorgi"<gdigio...@gmail.com> >>>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"<pdml@pdml.net> >>>> Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 9:58 PM >>>> Subject: Pentax Q photos >>>> >>>> >>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/n00bs/5943610162/in/set-72157627083831739/ >>>>> >>>>> And there's a K1 in the set... >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Godfrey >>>>> godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>>>> follow the directions. >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>>> follow the directions. >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom! >> >> --Marvin the Martian. >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. >> > > > > -- > Steve Desjardins > -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
