نوشته شده در موضوع خرید اینترنتی در 14 نوامبر 2016




these images
.  Perspective is a function
customarily of the
widen of a camera from a theme — a customarily purpose a focal length
plays is in last that apportionment of a stage we are capturing, not
how a stage is rendered.  Technically, it is a
duty of a widen from a theme to a lens aperture, yet as
prolonged as we are not during macro, or nearby macro, distances, it is sufficient to
cruise of a viewpoint simply as a subject-camera widen given this
amounts to a disproportion of customarily a few inches.  Two photos taken from a same position will have
a same viewpoint regardless of a focal length or sensor size
regardless of a FL (focal length) of a lens used.

A good approach to cruise of viewpoint is to cruise two
objects, one 10 ft from a camera, a other 30 ft from a camera. 
If both objects are in a support with a theme being a closer object,
and we fire during 50mm from 10 ft away, afterwards a offer vigilant is three
times as distant divided as a subject.  If, however, we step behind another
10 ft and support a theme in a same demeanour during 100mm, then, if a the
offer vigilant is even still in a frame, afterwards a theme will be 20 ft
divided and a other vigilant 40 ft divided — customarily twice as far. 
Conversely, if we get twice as tighten and support during 25mm, now a theme is
5 ft away, and a other vigilant is 25 feet divided — 5 times as far.

Not customarily does a subject-camera widen change a viewpoint by
changing a relations distances of subjects within a frame, it also
changes, in a identical fashion, how widely distant they are in a frame. 
In fact, when we use a longer perspective, we will mostly find that many of
what was in a support of a closer viewpoint is now outward a frame
(the tree pics

are an glorious instance of this). 
Inasmuch as a scene as a whole matters, rather than simply the
tangible subject, viewpoint can be one of a many distinguished elements of a


for a some-more finish list).  When given in stops, a ER is dull to the
nearest 1/3 stop.  The reason that 35mm FF (24mm x 36mm) is chosen
as a customary is due to a recognition in a days of film and a fact
that there are some-more lenses done for this sold format that many of
a smaller sensor DSLRs also use, yet we can use any format as a
reference.  Due to conflicting aspect ratios,
when gathering to a measure of a some-more block sensor, we use the
ratio of a shorter measure of a sensor to discriminate a ER, and when
gathering to a measure of a some-more elongated sensor, we use a ratio
of a longer sensor dimensions.  In a box of 3:2 being cropped to
4:3, or vice-versa, this will outcome in reduction than a 1/3 stop difference.

One side outcome of gathering 3:2 images to 4:3 is that it greatly
mitigates any density that competence uncover in a impassioned corners. 
However, we contingency also comprehend that this comes during a responsibility of removing
1/9 of a pixels from a image.  But as 3:2 systems generally have
some-more pixels than 4:3 systems of a same generation, this can be done
yet any fact chastisement when comparing systems.  Realistically,
however, a impassioned corners make adult so tiny of a image, and are so
tighten between systems anyway during a same DOF that it is customarily a
caring for a many hardcore of “pixel-peepers”. 
Please see this image
as an instance of what would be called a “huge” disproportion in the
corners of conflicting systems during a same DOF.  we simply see it as a
non-issue, generally deliberation that a differences elsewhere in the
support matter some-more by far, yet others see it as a vicious disadvantage. 
In any event, framing somewhat wider and gathering to 4:3 will basically
discharge even that impassioned case.

Compacts / Cell Phones:















3.42 x




→ 6


4.04 x





5 1/3


4.29 x





5 1/3


4.60 x 6.13






5.32 x





4 1/2


5.7 x





4 1/3


6.6 x






1″ (Sony RX100)

8.8 x 13.2




2.89 → 3

DSLRs / mirrorless:














CX (Nikon 1)

8.8 x 13.2






4/3 (Olympus, Panasonic)

13.0 x 17.3





APS-C (Sigma)

13.8 x 20.7





1 2/3

APS-C (Canon)

14.9 x 22.






1 1/3

(Sony, Nikon, K-M, Pentax, Fuji)

15.7 x 23.7






1 1/3

APS-H (Canon 1D series)

19.1 x






35mm FF (Canon 1Ds series, 5D; Nikon
D3, D700)

24 x 36





Leica S2

30 x 45






Pentax 645

33 x 44






MF (Mamiya

36 x







Rather than describe to an capricious standard, such as 35mm
FF, a ER between any dual systems regulating a lengths of their respective
or, some-more simply, possibly order a ERs of a sold systems, or
subtract their sensor ratios when regulating stops, regulating a values in a list above.  For example, the
SR between a Canon 40D and Olympus E3 can be computed
(for a same AOV) as 2.00 / 1.62 ~ 1.23 (2/3 of a stop to the
nearest 1/3 stop, or, some-more simply:  2 stops – 1 1/3 stops = 2/3 of a
stop).  Thus, 25mm f/2 ISO 100 on 4/3 would have a same AOV, DOF,
and shiver speed as 31mm f/ 2.5 ISO 160 on 1.6x, given 25mm x 1.23 ~
31mm, f/2 x 1.23 ~ f/2.5, and ISO 100 x 1.23² ~ ISO 160 (or, alternatively, f/2 + 2/3 stops = f/2.5 and ISO 100 +
2/3 stops = ISO 160).

aperture diameter
.  This territory will start by deliberating DOF,
followed by a contention on

.  The contention on a sum volume of light
projected on a sensor is a conflicting section,

Exposure, Brightness, and Total Light

The DOF (depth of field) is a widen between a nearby and distant points from a focal craft that appear to be in vicious concentration and is a executive actor in a volume of fact rendered in an image. It is also vicious not to upset DOF with credentials blur
(which is discussed offer down).  Photos with:

• a same
perspective (subject-camera distance)

the same
• a same
aperture diameter
• a same

• a same observation distance
• noticed with a same visual

will have a same DOF (and

).  Alternatively, photos with:

• a same


(subject-camera distance)
• equivalent

focal lengths

• equivalent

relative apertures

• regulating the
equivalent CoC

will also have a same DOF (and


Note that neither
series of pixels nor a widen of a pixels figure into a CoC during all, solely inasmuch as a size
we arrangement a imitation depends on a widen and/or series of pixels that make adult a photo, such as when observation 100%
crops on a mechanism monitor.  The arithmetic demonstrating a equivalencies is worked out a bit
offer down — do try to enclose your excitement! ; )

Moving right along, customarily an infinitesimally tiny apportionment of a picture is indeed in
concentration (the focal plane), yet as a eyes and mind can't see with
gigantic precision, a focal craft is noticed to have some depth. As we boost a image, we
can some-more clearly see that reduction and reduction of a picture is within focus, and
this is how a DOF changes with enlargement.

Of course, no lens is perfect, so a focal craft is not a craft during all,
yet rather a surface.  In some instances, a camber of a focal
craft (field curvature) can be impassioned adequate that what appears to be edge
density is indeed a prosaic aspect descending outward a focal “plane”. 
In addition, a concentration falloff is light — a closer elements in the
stage are to a focal surface, a crook they will appear.  The
DOF is a abyss from an ideal focal craft in that we cruise elements
of a stage to be “sharp enough”.

The series of pixels, or sharpness of a lens, on the
other hand, have zero to do with DOF.  These are independent
factors in a sharpness of a imitation — a low fortitude image
displayed with vast measure does not indispensably have low DOF — the
blur is a outcome of a revoke resolution.  The disproportion between
the fuzz due to singular DOF and a fuzz due to other factors (soft
lens, low pixel count, camera shake, diffraction, etc.) is that these
other sources of fuzz impact a whole imitation equally, given a blur
associated with shoal DOF will be incomparable for a portions of the
scene offer from a focal plane.  Blur do to motion, of course,
will selectively impact objects that have a biggest relations motion
in a support (that is, a delayed relocating vigilant tighten to a camera competence have
greater fuzz than a quick relocating vigilant distant from a camera).

uses 0.030 mm)
• CoC (1.5x)           
= (25 cm) / (5 lp / mm) / 11.4 / 25 = 0.018 mm (DOFMaster
uses 0.020 mm)
• CoC (1.6x)           
= (25 cm) / (5 lp / mm) / 12.1 / 25 = 0.017 mm (DOFMaster
uses 0.019 mm)
• CoC (mFT — 4/3)  = (25 cm) / (5 lp / mm) /  15  
/ 25 = 0.013 mm (DOFMaster
uses 0.015 mm)

Let’s discriminate one some-more instance for a CoC regulating a 20×30 in. photo
viewed from 2 ft divided with 20-20 prophesy taken with a FF camera (24mm x
36mm sensor):

• Viewing widen = 2 ft x 12 in / ft x 2.54 cm / in = 61 cm
• Final picture fortitude for 20-20 prophesy = 5 lp / mm
• Enlargement = (30 in x 25.4 mm / in) / 36 mm = 21.2

Plugging into a CoC Formula, CoC (mm) = observation widen (cm) / preferred final-image resolution
(lp/mm) for a 25 cm observation widen / boost / 25, we get CoC = (61 cm) / (5 lp / mm) / (21.2) / 25 = 0.023 mm, that is what we
would expect, given observation a 20×30 in. imitation during 2 ft is homogeneous to
viewing a 8.3×12.5 in. imitation during 10 inches (very tighten to “standard observation conditions”). 

This online calculator
  allows we name a CoC; however, for
comparative functions conflicting formats, a CoC will scale by the
equivalence ratio (crop factor).

On a other hand, a DOF formulas do not embody how
closely we scrutinize a photo.  In other words, dual photos
competence have a same DOF per a mathematical formulas, yet if we
investigate one imitation some-more closely than another (perhaps it is more
interesting, for example), afterwards a DOFs competence seem different:

Scrutinizing one picture some-more critically than another has
a same outcome as looking during that picture with a aloft manifest acuity than
a another.

However, for dual photos of a same stage displayed during a same widen and
noticed from a same widen that have a same computed DOF, then
whatever a biased clarity of a DOF is for one photo, it will be a same for
a other imitation (although, as discussed above, it’s easy to upset “blurry” with “less DOF”).

As a DOF deepens, some-more of a picture is rendered sharply, both because
some-more of a picture is within a DOF, and given a aberrations of the
lens lessens as a orifice gets smaller — adult to a point. 
Depending on a sensor pixel widen and arrangement widen of an image, a effects of diffraction
will start to revoke a sharpness of a picture some-more than a deeper DOF
and obtuse aberrations boost a sharpness.  However, a indicate diffraction
softening outweighs a deeper DOF and obtuse aberrations depends
on a stage and a lens sharpness.  It is common to read
about “diffraction singular apertures”, yet these are formed on a “perfect”
lens and images where a whole of a stage lies within a DOF.  In
other words, it is utterly common to grasp a crook and some-more detailed
picture that is past a “diffraction limited” orifice due to the
deeper DOF including some-more of a scene.

bokeh (the quality of the
out-of-focus areas of an image) with a quantity of a blur. 
For example, if a theme is 10 ft from a camera, 50mm f/2 will have the
same framing and DOF on a same format as 100mm f/2 for a theme 20 ft
away.  That is, a same widen from a focal craft will be
deliberate to be in vicious focus.  But a inlet of a background
fuzz will be really conflicting — a longer focal length will boost the
credentials blur.

In fact, we can be some-more specific.  The volume of credentials blur
(assuming a credentials is good outward a DOF) is proportional to the
ratio of a orifice diameters.  For example, while a DOF for 50mm
f/2 and 100mm f/2 will be a same for a same framing (in most
circumstances), a credentials fuzz will be double for 100mm f/2 given the
orifice hole is twice as vast for 100mm f/2 than for 50mm f/2 (100mm
/ 2 = 50mm, 50mm / 2 = 25mm).  A good educational on this can be found


We can now make a following generalizations about a DOF
of images on conflicting formats for non-macro situations (when a theme widen is “large” compared to
a focal length), gripping in mind that orifice hole = focal length / f-ratio, and assuming
that all images are noticed from a same widen with a same manifest acuity:

relative aperture
, and arrangement size, incomparable sensor systems will furnish a some-more shoal DOF than smaller sensors
in suit to a ratio of a sensor sizes.

  • For a same perspective, framing,
    aperture diameter, and arrangement size, all systems have a same DOF.

  • If both formats use a same focal length and relations orifice (and so also
    a same orifice diameter), yet a incomparable sensor complement gets closer so
    that a theme occupies a same area of a frame, and a photos are
    displayed during a same dimensions, afterwards a incomparable sensor complement will have
    a some-more shoal DOF in suit to ratio of a sensor sizes.

  • For a same viewpoint and focal length, incomparable sensor systems will
    have a wider framing.  If a same

    relative aperture

    is used, afterwards both
    systems will also have a same orifice diameter.  As a result, if
    the imitation from a incomparable sensor complement is displayed during a incomparable widen in
    proportion to ratio of a sensor sizes, or a imitation from a incomparable sensor system
    is cropped to a same framing as a picture from a smaller sensor system
    and displayed during a same size, afterwards a dual photos will have a same


    Let’s give examples for any unfolding regulating mFT (4/3), 1.6x, and FF
    (forgive me for withdrawal out 1.5x, as it is so tighten to 1.6x as to be all
    but surplus to use for a purpose of examples, as we am repeating the
    process several times).  As remarkable earlier, a condition of “same
    display size” customarily requires a same erratic length, rather than the
    same length and width.  This eminence is nonessential when the
    systems have a same aspect ratio, yet can infrequently be a means when
    the aspect ratios are not a same (for example, if we arrangement a photo
    with a 15 in. diagonal, afterwards a 4:3 imitation would be 9 x 12 inches and a
    3:2 imitation would be 8.3 x 12.5 inches).  In all cases, we assume a same observation distance
    and manifest acuity:


    • Let’s contend we are holding a imitation of a theme 10 ft away, and use 40mm f/2.8
      on mFT (4/3), 50mm f/2.8 on 1.6x, and 80mm f/2.8 on FF.  All will have the
      same perspective, given a subject-camera widen is a same, and all
      will have a same AOV, given 40mm x 2 = 50mm x 1.6 = 80mm.  Since
      all are regulating f/2.8, afterwards if we arrangement a photos during a same size, FF
      will have a slightest DOF, 1.6x will have 1.6x some-more DOF than FF, and mFT (4/3)
      will have a twice a DOF of FF (1.25x some-more DOF than 1.6x).

    • Again, let’s contend we are holding a imitation of a theme 10 ft away, yet this
      time use 40mm f/4 on mFT (4/3), 50mm f/5 on 1.6x, and 80mm f/8 on FF.  Once
      again, all will have a same viewpoint given a subject-camera
      distances are a same, and all will have a same AOV given 40mm x 2 =
      50mm x 1.6 = 80mm.  The orifice diameters will also be a same
      given 40mm / 4 = 50mm / 5 = 80mm / 8 = 10mm.  In this case, all
      photos will have a same DOF when displayed during a same dimensions.

    • This time, let’s fire a theme from 20 ft during 40mm f/4 on mFT (4/3), 16 ft at
      40mm f/4 on 1.6x, and 10 ft during 40mm f/4 on FF.  While the
      perspectives are conflicting (since a subject-camera distances are not the
      same), a AOVs are a same given 20 ft / 2 = 16 ft / 1.6 = 10 ft, yet FF
      will have a many shoal DOF, 1.6x will have a DOF 1.6x deeper, and mFT
      will double a DOF.

    • We now fire a same theme from 10 ft divided with all formats, yet this
      time use a same focal length and same f-ratio as good (for example, 50mm
      f/2.8).  If we arrangement a mFT (4/3) imitation with a 12 inch
      diagonal, a 1.6x imitation with a 15 in. diagonal, and
      a FF imitation with a 24 in. diagonal, and viewpoint a images
      from a same distance, afterwards all will have a same DOF.  Note how
      a diagonals conform to a focal multipliers of a respective
      systems:  12 in x 2 = 15 in x 1.6 = 24 in, that means that if we
      cropped a photos to a same framing, they would all be a same


    Let’s now denote a DOF equilibrium mathematically.  As stated
    earlier, a DOF is a widen from a focal craft where objects in
    this territory are deliberate to be critically sharp.  However, the
    widen from a focal craft is not always an even split.  When the
    theme widen (d) is “large” compared to a focal length of a lens
    (non-macro distances), the
    distant extent of vicious concentration (df) , nearby extent of vicious focus
    (dn), and DOF can be computed as:

    • df ~ [H · d] / [H – d]

    • dn ~ [H · d] / [H + d]

    • DOF = df – dn ~ [2 · H · d²] / [H² – d²]

    where d is a widen to a theme and H is a hyperfocal distance. 
    We can now discriminate a DOF behind a theme and a DOF in front of the

    • DOF behind = df – d = d² / [H – d]

    • DOF in front = d – dn = d² / [H + d]

    Note that a smaller a subject-camera widen (d) becomes in
    comparison to a hyperfocal widen (H), a some-more uniformly a DOF is
    separate in front and behind a subject, given (H – d) and (H + d) are
    scarcely equal for values of d that are tiny compared to H.  In other words, the
    common knowledge that 1/3 of a DOF is in front of a theme and 2/3 of
    a DOF is behind a theme is not always true.  This “rule” is
    current when customarily when a subject-camera distance, d, is equal to 1/3 the
    hyperfocal distance,  H.  As a theme widen changes from
    that sold value, a 1/3 – 2/3 DOF separate becomes a progressively
    reduction accurate outline of a separate of a DOF in front and behind the

    In another scenario, it is also engaging to note that as subject
    widen approaches
    a hyperfocal distance, a distant widen of vicious concentration approaches infinity, and a near
    widen of vicious concentration approaches half a hyperfocal distance, so giving gigantic DOF beyond
    half a hyperfocal distance.

    Another engaging unfolding to cruise is that when a subject-camera
    distance, d, is tiny compared to a hyperfocal distance, H, then, for
    a same format, a DOF will be radically a same for a same framing
    and f-ratio.  For example, 50mm during 10 ft has a same
    framing as 100mm during 20 ft on 35mm FF.  If we fire a scene
    during f/2 in any case, we will get a same DOF given a hyperfocal
    widen is 137 ft for a CoC of 0.03mm (the value used in many DOF
    calculators for 35mm FF, that corresponds to an 8×10 in. imitation viewed
    from a widen of 10 inches), that is many incomparable than a theme distance
    of 10 ft.  However, were we instead to review 24mm f/2 during 30 ft to
    48mm f/2 during 60 ft (same framing), we would get a
    conflicting DOF given a hyperfocal widen works out to 30 ft (for a CoC
    of 0.03mm), that is a same, rather than many larger, than the
    subject-camera distance.

    In any case, we can see that a DOF is a duty customarily of a hyperfocal
    widen (H) and a theme widen (d).  The purpose of a focal
    length (FL), f-ratio (f), and CoC (c) are contained in a hyperfocal

    H ~ FL² / (f · c)

    If we scale a focal length, f-ratio, and CoC by the
    equilibrium ratio (R), a hyperfocal widen stays a same:

    H’ ~ (FL·R)² / [(f · R) · (c · R)]

        = [FL² · R²] / [(f · c) · R²]

        = FL² / (f · c)

        = H

    Consequently a DOF is immutable for a same perspective, framing, and
    orifice diameter. By expressing H in terms of orifice hole (a), angle of viewpoint (AOV),
    and a suit of a sensor erratic that a CoC covers (p), we get
    a format eccentric countenance for a hyperfocal distance, and
    hence DOF:

    H ~ a / [2·p·tan (AOV/2)]

    Thus, for non-macro situations, a DOF for a same perspective, framing,
    and outlay widen is also a same.

    A outcome of a incomparable sensor means that a longer
    focal length is compulsory for a same viewpoint and framing, as good as a
    incomparable f-ratio to obtain a same orifice diameter.  For example, let’s consider
    images taken of a same stage from a same position with a same

    • 5DII during 80mm, f/8 (aperture hole = 80mm / 8 = 10mm)
    • D300 during 53mm, f/5 (aperture hole = 53mm / 5 ~ 10mm)
    • 7D during 50mm, f/5 (aperture hole = 50mm / 5 = 10mm)
    • E30 during 40mm, f/4 (aperture hole = 40mm / 4 = 10mm)

    Since a perspective, framing, and orifice diameters are all a same, afterwards for the
    same arrangement widen and observation distance, their DOFs will also be a same. As a side, if a shiver speeds are also a same (which will need a
    aloft ISO for a aloft f-ratios to contend a same
    brightness), afterwards a images will be made
    with a same sum volume of light as well, that will outcome in
    a same relations sound if a sensors have a same


    Another reason that DOF is so important, even if DOF, per
    se, is not an emanate to a photographer, is that it is also closely connected with sharpness, diffraction softening, and
    vignetting.  The reason that DOF affects sharpness is twofold. First of all, as shown above, a DOF is directly associated to a aperture,
    and a incomparable a orifice diameter, a incomparable a aberrations, and, in some
    instances, a incomparable a margin curvature.  Secondly, a some-more shallow
    DOF means that reduction of a stage will be within a DOF, and, by
    definition, elements of a stage outward a DOF will not be sharp. 
    This second indicate is generally important, since, as remarkable earlier, DOF
    calculators customarily bottom their calculations off a CoC for an 8×10 print
    noticed from 10 inches away.  Since so many now weigh a sharpness
    of a lens on a basement of 100% crops on a mechanism monitor, a DOF that
    is seen during 100% on a mechanism shade is significantly some-more slight than
    a DOF computed by a calculators.

    aperture is also closely connected to diffraction. 

    Diffraction softening is a outcome of a call inlet of light
    representing indicate sources as disks (known as
    Airy Disks),
    and is many really not, as is misunderstood by many, an outcome of
    light “bouncing off” a orifice blades.  The hole of the
    Airy Disk
    is a duty of both a f-ratio and a wavelength of light:  d ~
    2.44·λ·f, where d is a hole of a Airy
    Disk, λ is a wavelength of a light, and f is a

    relations aperture

    . Larger

    relations aperture

    (deeper DOFs) outcome in incomparable disks, as do longer
    wavelengths of light (towards a red finish of the

    manifest spectrum
    ) so not all colors will humour from diffraction
    softening equally.  The wavelengths of light in a manifest spectrum
    differ by approximately a means of two, so that means, for example, that
    red light will humour around twice a volume of diffraction softening as
    blue light.

    Diffraction softening is destined during any aperture, and worsens as the
    lens is stopped down.  However, other factors facade a effects of
    the augmenting diffraction softening:  a augmenting DOF and the
    lessening lens aberrations.  As a DOF increases, some-more and some-more of
    the imitation is rendered “in focus”, creation a imitation seem sharper. 
    In addition, as a orifice narrows, a aberrations in a lens
    lessen given some-more of a orifice is masked by a orifice blades.  For far-reaching apertures, a augmenting DOF and alleviation lens
    aberrations distant transcend a effects of diffraction softening.  At
    small apertures, a retreat is true.  In a halt (often, but
    not always,
    around a dual stop interval), a dual effects roughly cancel any other
    out, and a change indicate for a edges typically lags behind a balance
    point for a core by around a stop (the edges customarily suffer
    greater aberrations than a center).  In fact, it is not uncommon
    for diffraction softening to be widespread right from far-reaching open for lenses
    slower than f/5.6 homogeneous on FF, and so these lenses are sharpest
    wide open (for a portions of a stage within a DOF, of course).

    The best DOF is mostly some-more a matter of artistic intent
    than resolved detail.  Clearly, some-more shoal DOFs have reduction of the
    scene within vicious focus, yet this is by design.  What is not by
    design is that, during really wider apertures, lens aberrations revoke the
    detail even for a portions of a stage within a DOF, so even if the
    photographer prefers a some-more shoal DOF, they competence select to stop down
    simply to describe some-more fact where fact is important.  Likewise,
    while a photographer competence stop down with a vigilant to get as many of the
    scene as probable within a DOF so as to have a some-more minute photo
    overall, portions of a stage that were within a DOF during wider
    apertures will turn softer due to a effects of diffraction. 
    Thus, a photographer must
    balance a boost in fact gained by bringing some-more of a scene
    within a DOF opposite fact mislaid for portions of a stage that
    were within a DOF during wider apertures.  In addition, deeper DOFs
    require smaller apertures, that means possibly longer shiver speeds
    (increasing a risk/amount of suit fuzz and/or camera shake) or
    greater sound given reduction light will tumble on a sensor during some-more narrow
    apertures for a given shiver speed.

    A common parable is that smaller pixels humour some-more from diffraction than
    larger pixels.  On a contrary, for a given sensor widen and lens,
    smaller pixels always outcome in some-more detail.  That said, as we stop down and a DOF deepens, we strech a indicate where
    we start to remove fact due to diffraction softening.  As a
    consequence, photos done with some-more pixels will start to remove their
    fact advantage progressing and quicker than images done with fewer
    pixels, but they will always keep some-more detail
    Eventually, a additional fact afforded by a additional pixels becomes
    trivial (most positively by f/32 on FF).  See

    for an glorious instance of a outcome of pixel widen on
    diffraction softening.

    In terms of cross-format comparisons, all systems humour a same from
    diffraction softening during a same DOF.  This does not meant that all
    systems solve a same fact during a same DOF, as diffraction
    softening is yet one of many sources of fuzz (lens aberrations, motion
    blur, vast pixels, etc.).  However, a some-more we stop down (the
    deeper a DOF), diffraction increasingly becomes a widespread source of
    blur.  By a time we strech a homogeneous of f/32 on FF (f/22 on
    APS-C, f/16 on mFT and 4/3), a differences in fortitude between
    systems, regardless of a lens or pixel count, is trivial.

    For example, cruise the

    Canon 100 / 2.8L IS macro on a 5D2 (21 MP FF) vs a Olympus 14-42 /
    3.5-5.6 pack lens on an L10 (10 MP 4/3)
    .  Note that a macro
    lens on FF resolves significantly some-more (to put it mildly) during a lenses’
    respective optimal apertures, due to a macro lens being sharper, the
    FF DSLR carrying significantly some-more pixels, and a boost factor
    being half as many for FF vs 4/3.  However, as we stop down past
    the rise aperture, all those advantages are asymptotically eaten divided by
    diffraction, and by a time we get to f/32 on FF and f/16 on 4/3, the
    systems solve roughly a same.

    For a same tone and f-ratio, a Airy Disk will have
    the same diameter, yet camber a smaller apportionment of a incomparable sensor than a
    smaller sensor, so ensuing in reduction diffraction softening in the
    final photo.  On a other hand, for a same tone and DOF, the
    Airy Disk spans a same suit of all sensors, and so a effect
    of diffraction softening is a same for all systems during a same DOF.

    Let’s work an instance regulating immature light (λ
    = 530 nm = 0.00053mm). The hole of a Airy
    Disk during f/8 is 2.44 · 0.00053mm·8 = 0.0103mm,
    and a hole of a Airy Disk during f/4 is half as many — 0.0052mm. 
    For FF, a hole of a Airy Disk represents 0.0103mm / 43.3mm = 0.024%
    of a sensor erratic during f/8 and 0.005mm / 21.6mm = 0.012% of the
    diagonal  during f/4.   For mFT (4/3), a hole of a Airy Disk
    represents 0.0103mm / 21.6mm = 0.048% during f/8 and 0.005mm / 21.6mm = 0.024%
    during f/4.

    Thus, during a same f-ratio, we
    can see that a hole of a Airy Disk represents half a proportion
    of a FF sensor as mFT (4/3), yet during a same DOF, a hole of a Airy Disk
    represents a same suit of a sensor. In other words,
    all systems will humour a same volume of diffraction softening during the
    same DOF and arrangement dimensions
    .  However, a complement that began
    with some-more fortitude will always keep some-more resolution, yet that
    resolution advantage will asymptotically disappear as a DOF deepens.  In
    absolute terms, a commencement we will notice a effects of diffraction
    softening is when a hole of a Airy Disk exceeds that of a pixel
    (two pixels for a Bayer CFA), but, depending on how vast a imitation is
    displayed, we competence not notice until a hole of a Airy Disk is much

    Typically, a effects of diffraction softening do not
    even start to turn apparent until f/11 on FF (f/7.1 on APS-C and f/5.6
    on mFT — 4/3), and start to turn clever by f/22 on FF (f/14 on APS-C
    and f/11 on mFT — 4/3).  By f/32 on FF (f/22 on APS-C, f/16 on mFT
    — 4/3) a effects of diffraction softening are so clever that there is
    little disproportion in fortitude between systems, regardless of a lens,
    sensor size, or pixel count.

    Zuiko 50 / 2 macro
    (7 blades) and
    Zuiko 150 / 2 (9 blades), that are distant incomparable than can be accounted
    for by a teenager differences in a orifice shapes.  In fact, the

    Canon 100 / 2.8 macro
    and the

    Sigma 105 / 2.8 macro
    both have 8 blades, yet uncover a same huge
    differences in sharpness from f / 22 to f / 32 on 1.6x as a Zuikos. 
    The many expected reason for this is that during a smallest aperture, not all lenses are equally accurate.

    For example, cruise a 50mm lens and a consistent “aperture bias” of -0.5mm, that is, a lens always sets a orifice 0.5mm smaller than it should be (whether as a
    outcome messy peculiarity control or messy design).  At f/4, a orifice hole should be 50mm / 4 = 12.5mm.  However, a disposition of -0.5mm would make a orifice hole 12mm instead, ensuing in a loyal f-ratio of 50mm / 12mm = f / 4.17
    — 1/9 of a stop off — that is insignificant. At f / 8, a orifice hole should be 50mm / 8 = 6.25mm.  Again, a disposition of -0.5mm would make a orifice hole 5.75mm ensuing in a loyal f-ratio of 50mm / 5.75mm = f / 8.7 —
    1/4 of a stop off — adjacent on significant, yet still tiny adequate to go neglected by many people.  At f / 22, however, a blunder becomes many some-more of an issue. The orifice hole should be 50mm / 22 = 2.27mm.  This time, a -0.5mm disposition would make the
    orifice hole 1.77mm for a loyal f-ratio of 50mm / 1.77mm = f / 28 — 2/3 of a stop conflicting — really noticeable, and ensuing in a substantial disproportion in diffraction softening during such tiny apertures. Furthermore, a “aperture bias” need not be constant, and
    could change depending on a comparison f-ratio, producing even greater
    differences during tiny apertures.

    Of course, this supposition for a discrepancies in a effects of
    diffraction softening in a SLR Gear tests would need to be accurate by
    comparing a exposures during conflicting f-ratios.  In addition, the
    effects of vignetting can obscure a emanate during far-reaching apertures, but, as
    demonstrated above, tiny errors in a orifice diameters are considerate at
    wider apertures anyway.  Thus, we would exam during tiny apertures, such
    as f / 22 and smaller, where a discrepancies due to aperture
    disposition blunder are many noticeable.  Unfortunately, SLR Gear does not
    horde (or even still have) these images to make such a comparison, so this
    surmise needs to be verified.  Furthermore, it is not doubtful that
    an “aperture bias” could have been an emanate with a sold lens they
    tested, yet not autochthonous to all (or most) copies of a lens. Furthermore, while it is obvious that the
    shape of a orifice plays a purpose in how a bokeh is rendered, it
    is doubtful that it plays any purpose in a grade of diffraction softening
    so prolonged as a area of a orifice is a same. Regardless, a effects of diffraction softening are
    not quite poignant until really tiny apertures.

    To get a DOF incomparable than what a lens can stop
    down to achieve, we possibly use a shorter lens and TC (teleconverter), or
    support wider and stand to a preferred framing. 
    The outcome of a TC is to greaten a

    relations aperture

    by a same means as the
    focal length. For example, by regulating a 50mm macro during f/22 with a 2x TC, we would effectively be during 100mm f/45.  While some-more convenient
    than regulating a TC, a downside to framing wider and gathering is that it costs us pixels. 
    However, given a lenses for all systems can
    stop down to a diffraction singular fortitude of a sensor, many of a detail
    mislaid by gathering would have been mislaid from diffraction softening
    regardless.  For example, an picture during 100mm f/32 will have a same
    DOF and scarcely a same fact as an picture during 50mm f/16 taken from the
    same widen and afterwards cropped to a same framing, despite
    carrying 1/4 a series of pixels on a subject.  This is given a f/32 image
    has already mislaid roughly a same volume of fact due to diffraction
    softening, nonetheless it will still keep somewhat some-more detail, due to the
    oversampling of a incomparable series of diffraction singular pixels still
    renders somewhat some-more fact than a fewer series of incomparable pixels.

    Of course, it would be good if we didn’t have to stop down to increase
    sharpness for a portions of a picture within a DOF, generally as this
    helps us equivocate a effects of diffraction softening.  For example,
    let’s contend we are holding a imitation of a landscape where a whole stage is
    within a DOF, even during f/2.8. Thus, there would be no reason to fire during a conflicting f-ratio on
    conflicting systems to contend a same DOF.  However, a aberrations
    for incomparable apertures are some-more problematical than a aberrations for
    smaller apertures, and, once again, we comprehend that incomparable sensor system
    will need a aloft f-ratio to contend a same orifice diameter. Thus,
    even yet a DOF competence not an emanate per se, a aberrations, as good as
    vignetting, many positively can be.

    Of course, one competence ask given we simply don’t select a settings on each
    complement that furnish a “best” formula for each. Well, of
    march that is how we would use a systems. The territory on
    talks some-more about this.

    for a many some-more in abyss discussion.



    دیدگاهتان را بنویسید