RoamingScott wrote:
If you're shooting GFX lenses at f/11 to f/14, you're doing it very wrong, diffraction sets in extremely quickly on GF lenses.
That’s utter nonsense.
While the diffraction limited aperture is larger than those values, you can still produce very sharp photographs at apertures smaller than (and larger than) the diffraction limited aperture on pretty much any camera/lens combination.
Years ago I accepted the notion that the FF cameras of that time must be shot at about f/8 in order to get good sharpness.
Then I decided to conduct my own tests with all of my lenses at a range of apertures (and in the case of zooms, focal lengths), which made it clear that the real world effect on sharpness of being an aperture or two away from the “best” aperture was negligible. And many cases using a non-ideal aperture produced images with greater subjective sharpness.
What is subjective sharpness? Take two examples.
Let’s say what we are photographing a subject (perhaps a flower or a person’s face, etc.) against a background with some detail. While some aperture might be the ideal diffraction-limited aperture, using a larger aperture that throws the background out of focus can produce the subjective sense that the subject is sharper against that soft background than if we had used the supposedly “right” aperture with maximum theoretical sharpness… and a busier background competing with our primary subject.
The opposite is also true. For example, if we are photographing something like perhaps a landscape subject where there are both near and far elements, shooting at a much smaller aperture than the diffraction limited aperture (let’s say f/16 or even for /22 on FF and perhaps a stop smaller on miniMF) the overall sense ill sharpness will be stronger than if we shot at, say, f/5.6 or f/8 or whatever the diffraction limited aperture is, which would allow near/far elements to be OOF. (Yes, a TS is a good alternative in some cases, as is focus stacking, but that’s s different subject.)
Rather than relying on questionable rules of thumb, it is far better to gain actual experience using the full range of apertures and understanding the effects and the magnitude of those effects in photographs and how to best balance them for the desired result.
To think aperture decisions are as simple as “stay close the the diffraction limted aperture” or “that aperture is too small,” then “you are doing it very wrong.”
RoamingScott wrote:
If you're shooting GFX lenses at f/11 to f/14, you're doing it very wrong, diffraction sets in extremely quickly on GF lenses.
That’s utter nonsense.
While the diffraction limited aperture is larger than those values, you can still produce very sharp photographs at apertures smaller than (and larger than) the diffraction limited aperture on pretty much any camera/lens combination.
Years ago I accepted the notion that the FF cameras of that time must be shot at about f/8 in order to get good sharpness.
Then I decided to conduct my own tests with all of my lenses at a range of apertures (and in the case of zooms, focal lengths), which made it clear that the real world effect on sharpness of being an aperture or two away from the “best” aperture was negligible. And many cases using a non-ideal aperture produced images with greater subjective sharpness.
What is subjective sharpness? Take two examples.
Let’s say what we are photographing a subject (perhaps a flower or a person’s face, etc.) against a background with some detail. While some aperture might be the ideal diffraction-limited aperture, using a larger aperture that throws the background out of focus can produce the subjective sense that the subject is sharper against that soft background than if we had used the supposedly “right” aperture with maximum theoretical sharpness… and a busier background competing with our primary subject.
The opposite is also true. For example, if we are photographing something like perhaps a landscape subject where there are both near and far elements, shooting at a much smaller aperture than the diffraction limited aperture (let’s say f/16 or even for /22 on FF and perhaps a stop smaller on miniMF) the overall sense ill sharpness will be stronger than if we shot at, say, f/5.6 or f/8 or whatever the diffraction limited aperture is, which would allow near/far elements to be OOF. (Yes, a TS is a good alternative in some cases, as is focus stacking, but that’s s different subject.)
Rather than relying on questionable rules of thumb, it is far better to gain actual experience using the full range of apertures and understanding the effects and the magnitude of those effects in photographs and how to best balance them for the desired result.
To think aperture decisions are as simple as “stay close the the diffraction limted aperture” or “that aperture is too small,” then “you are doing it all wrong.”
May 16, 2025 at 04:00 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #16816275 « Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread »
