If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#481
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to jjs ], who wrote in article : If the last element touches the sensor, there is much less reflection on the boundary, since the refraction coefficients are approximately the same. How close is "close"? Here are some estimates: if you consider a ray going from higher-n matter to lower-n matter (e.g., glass to air), and the angle of reflection is larger than the critical one, then you get full reflection. So, in English - is it better to have the rearmost lens as close to the film as possible? ??? Better *for what*? I repeat: if the distance is much smaller than wavelength, this would practically eliminate reflectance from the sensor boundary. It may have some other side effects; I'm in no position to comment on them... Umm.. you should also in such a case consider polishing deffects as the last element needs to be rather perfect. Yours, Ilya -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#482
|
|||
|
|||
In message .com,
"Siddhartha Jain" wrote: I don't want to start a holy war here (or one's already underway) but how come I took decently sharp images with my Canon 300D at f16 with a Jupiter 21m 200mm f4 lens? F/16 is not a very small aperture for 200mm. -- John P Sheehy |
#483
|
|||
|
|||
David J. Littleboy wrote:
I don't want to start a holy war here (or one's already underway) but how come I took decently sharp images with my Canon 300D at f16 with a Jupiter 21m 200mm f4 lens? MTF50 due to diffraction is roughly 800/f number, so that's a 50% term at 50 lp/mm (at f/16, the contrast will be zero at 100 lp/mm). The Nyquist frequency for the 300D is 2048/(15.1 x 2) = 68 lp/mm. So you should be seeing some loss of contrast, but there's still plenty of contrast to show Moire. (Note that most real lenses* have pretty poor contrast at 50 lp/mm, so I'd think that you'd not even notice the difference between f/11 and f/16. I'd think you'd be seriously unhappy with f/32 with the 300D, though.) *: Actually, this is true of normal and wide lenses. Longer primes can be quite good.) David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan The shape of the diffraction mtf curve, and the shape of the spot profile of diffraction is quite a bit different than that of defocus or most geometrical aberrations (even with same cutoff or spot HWFM). So it is not as easy as just comparing cutoff or spot diameter when comparing diffraction to defocus or other aberrations. The defraction effect is a general softening, rather than the 'blur' of other effects. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: Schneider Large-Format Lens TRADE!!! | Bill Gillooly | Large Format Equipment For Sale | 2 | February 20th 05 06:43 AM |
f/8 is the magic aperture for sharpness | paul | Digital SLR Cameras | 13 | January 25th 05 06:47 PM |
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs | KM | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 724 | December 7th 04 09:58 AM |
Copy/Macro Lens for this camera | Mr. Bill | Large Format Equipment For Sale | 0 | February 16th 04 07:18 PM |
FS: 8 Nikon lenses including 80-200 Nikkor 2.8 zoom and accessories | Henry Peña | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | November 11th 03 06:20 PM |