Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
members
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising
elec164

US
2578 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

"RE: I don't follow your landscape calculations Jon..."

elec164 Silver Member Nikonian since 15th Jan 2009
Thu 14-Mar-13 04:41 PM | edited Thu 14-Mar-13 07:14 PM by elec164

>The DX equivalent is rather 16mm at f5.6. In both cases - FX
>and DX - a 36" print would be diffraction limited, a
>24" print would not be.

I would think that softness due to diffraction, as is DOF, would be dependent upon amount of enlargement and viewing distance. The often quoted f/16 for FX and f/11 for DX is dependent on an 8x12 viewed at about 18".

Assuming the 24" and 36" measurements are the long side maintaining the 3:2 aspect ratio and keep the viewing distance relatively normal for the enlargement size, then the f/16 and f/11 would still define the relative sharpness. But if you view the 36" enlargement from the normal viewing distance of the 24", or the 24" from the 12" viewing distance than the affect of diffraction would be evident,as well as a change in appearent DOF.

On the other hand, a diffraction limited system is dependent on the pixel pitch and as such is format independent. For example most telescopes are diffraction limited. If you want more detail for a given focal length you need a bigger opening. On the other hand a good number of lens are aberration limited and that's why they generally perform better stopped down a bit. But at some point stopping down further causes lower contrast so the diffraction spot becomes the limiting factor. And if the spot size becomes three times the pixel pitch, the system becomes diffraction limited in ability to resolve detail. We can correct the softness due to enlargement of the Airy Disk through deconvolution. But resolution lost through diffraction cannot be regained.

But honestly the difference is really small, and due to the limits of human acuity, I can't help but wonder if this all doesnt to some extent or another fall under the old adage "How many angels can fit on the head of a pin".

Pete

Pete

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

This is a hot, active topic! FX vs DX [View all] , sirraj , Mon 11-Mar-13 10:27 AM
Subject
ID
Reply message RE: FX vs DX
1
Reply message RE: FX vs DX
2
Reply message RE: FX vs DX
3
Reply message RE: FX vs DX
4
Reply message RE: FX vs DX
5
Reply message RE: FX vs DX
6
Reply message RE: FX vs DX
7
     Reply message RE: FX vs DX
8
          Reply message RE: FX vs DX
14
Reply message RE: FX vs DX
9
Reply message RE: FX vs DX
13
     Reply message A failure to understand equivalence...
18
     Reply message RE: FX vs DX
36
Reply message RE: FX vs DX
10
Reply message RE: FX vs DX
11
     Reply message RE: FX vs DX
12
     Reply message RE: FX vs DX
15
          Reply message RE: FX vs DX
16
               Reply message RE: FX vs DX
17
               Reply message RE: FX vs DX
19
               Reply message RE: FX vs DX
37
     Reply message RE: FX vs DX
22
Reply message RE: FX vs DX
20
Reply message Very briefly Bryan...
21
     Reply message RE: Very briefly Bryan...
23
          Reply message I don't follow your landscape calculations Jon...
24
               Reply message RE: I don't follow your landscape calculations Jon...
25
               Reply message Don't you mean angels?
27
               Reply message RE: I don't follow your landscape calculations Jon...
26
                    Reply message Well, Jon...
28
Reply message RE: FX vs DX
29
Reply message RE: FX vs DX
30
Reply message RE: FX vs DX
38
Reply message RE: FX vs DX
31
Reply message RE: FX vs DX
32
Reply message RE: FX vs DX
33
Reply message RE: FX vs DX
34
     Reply message RE: FX vs DX
35