EB-1 wrote:
I most always use focus stacking now, usually at f/8. My landscape lenses are typically between 50-500mm, mostly 100-400 range. About 8-12 images are often adequate for stacking prior to stitching. I'd probably focus bracket the a7RVI at f/6.3 or similar for the single frame/composition if necessary. I have not tested how well the increment of one covers depth however.
I suspect that Dan shoots subjects more like me, in UT/AZ/NM/CO and places like that normally on a tripod. MS mode at ISO 100 looks great with the DGO. It certainly has more DR than the 5DsR, which was mostly adequate despite theroetically being lower than some sensors.
EBH
For my landscape photography, that’s exactly right.
(I usually don’t use the tripod for bird photography and I essentially never use it for street/travel, and for those types I don’t shy away from higher ISOs when needed.)
- - -
Another reply to the same EB-1 post was…
aCuria wrote:
What do you think about pixel shift? I was thinking it might be more valuable than focus stacking for landscape photography, while focus stacking seems more useful for macro photography.
Its a pity the A9iii doesn't have pixel shift
Generally, I don’t think pixel shift has a whole lot of value with high resolution full frame cameras. There is obviously the potential plus of wildly higher pixel resolution (and some other stuff), but these high res cameras already have enough resolution to make very good, very large prints without introducing some of the issues that pixel shift can create. (Note: some of those can also be issues with focus bracketing, especially subject motion.)
I think that pixel shift may have more potential value for those using much lower pixel resolution cameras who occasionally want to get much higher pixel resolution. (Your A9 example makes sense.)
- - -
Jack Flesher wrote:
If we have to sample at 2x, doesn’t that imply the airy disc needs to be the inverse, or 0.5 pixel instead of 2?
We’re getting very deep into a thick growth of very tine weeds here, but I think that technically you are right. (Unless the goal is to most accurately record the blur?)
Larger blur will affect the degree of (never perfect) accuracy of what is recorded at a larger number of pixels.
Having said that, I urge people to maybe take a step back from the theory and take a look at actual photographs using these various combinations of apertures and photo site densities… and note that what things actually look like as finished products is the ultimate benchmark.
- - -
Or as woofwoof70 wrote:
I'm always a little surprised when people dive deeply into diffraction and discs but if someone is committed to doing this there's the theory and there's taking pictures and looking at the effects. With digital on screen viewing is cheap (but do we really need to look at pictures at 100% on screen?) but prints maybe not so much so.
I do on occasions stop down past f8 to f11 and even beyond and find that the main hit for me is reduced contrast and there's always the sliders if they can help with that. My own opinion is that if you/we want to stop down for reasons of DoF or shutter speed then we should assuming we can still end up with acceptable image quality for our needs. In general I think there's a bit too much fear around this IMO.
EB-1 wrote:
I most always use focus stacking now, usually at f/8. My landscape lenses are typically between 50-500mm, mostly 100-400 range. About 8-12 images are often adequate for stacking prior to stitching. I'd probably focus bracket the a7RVI at f/6.3 or similar for the single frame/composition if necessary. I have not tested how well the increment of one covers depth however.
I suspect that Dan shoots subjects more like me, in UT/AZ/NM/CO and places like that normally on a tripod. MS mode at ISO 100 looks great with the DGO. It certainly has more DR than the 5DsR, which was mostly adequate despite theroetically being lower than some sensors.
EBH
For my landscape photography, that’s exactly right.
(I usually don’t use the tripod for bird photography and I essentially never use it for street/travel, and for those types I don’t shy away from higher ISOs when needed.)
- - -
Another reply to the same EB-1 post was…
aCuria wrote:
What do you think about pixel shift? I was thinking it might be more valuable than focus stacking for landscape photography, while focus stacking seems more useful for macro photography.
Its a pity the A9iii doesn't have pixel shift
Generally, I don’t think pixel shift has a whole lot of value with high resolution full frame cameras. There is obviously the potential plus of wildly higher pixel resolution (and some other stuff), but these high res cameras already have enough resolution to make very good, very large prints without introducing some of the issues that pixel shift can create. (Note: some of those can also be issues with focus bracketing, especially subject motion.)
I think that pixel shift may have more potential value for those using much lower pixel resolution cameras who occasionally want to get much higher pixel resolution. (Your A9 example makes sense.)
EB-1 wrote:
I most always use focus stacking now, usually at f/8. My landscape lenses are typically between 50-500mm, mostly 100-400 range. About 8-12 images are often adequate for stacking prior to stitching. I'd probably focus bracket the a7RVI at f/6.3 or similar for the single frame/composition if necessary. I have not tested how well the increment of one covers depth however.
I suspect that Dan shoots subjects more like me, in UT/AZ/NM/CO and places like that normally on a tripod. MS mode at ISO 100 looks great with the DGO. It certainly has more DR than the 5DsR, which was mostly adequate despite theroetically being lower than some sensors.
EBH
For my landscape photography, that’s exactly right.
(I usually don’t use the tripod for bird photography and I essentially never use it for street/travel, and for those types I don’t shy away from higher ISOs when needed.)
EB-1 wrote:
I most always use focus stacking now, usually at f/8. My landscape lenses are typically between 50-500mm, mostly 100-400 range. About 8-12 images are often adequate for stacking prior to stitching. I'd probably focus bracket the a7RVI at f/6.3 or similar for the single frame/composition if necessary. I have not tested how well the increment of one covers depth however.
I suspect that Dan shoots subjects more like me, in UT/AZ/NM/CO and places like that normally on a tripod. MS mode at ISO 100 looks great with the DGO. It certainly has more DR than the 5DsR, which was mostly adequate despite theroetically being lower than some sensors.
EBH
For my landscape photography, that’s exactly right.
(I usually don’t use the tripod for bird photography and I essentially never use it for street/travel, and for those types I don’t shy away from higher ISOs when needed.)
- - -
Another reply to the same EB-1 post was…
aCuria wrote:
What do you think about pixel shift? I was thinking it might be more valuable than focus stacking for landscape photography, while focus stacking seems more useful for macro photography.
Its a pity the A9iii doesn't have pixel shift
Generally, I don’t think pixel shift has a whole lot of value with high resolution full frame cameras. There is obviously the potential plus of wildly higher pixel resolution (and some other stuff), but these high res cameras already have enough resolution to make very good, very large prints without introducing some of the issues that pixel shift can create. (Note: some of those can also be issues with focus bracketing, especially subject motion.)
I think that pixel shift may have more potential value for those using much lower pixel resolution cameras who occasionally want to get much higher pixel resolution. (Your A9 example makes sense.)
- - -
Jack Flesher wrote:
If we have to sample at 2x, doesn’t that imply the airy disc needs to be the inverse, or 0.5 pixel instead of 2?
We’re getting very deep into a thick growth of very tine weeds here, but I think that technically you are right. (Unless the goal is to most accurately record the blur?)
Larger blur will affect the degree of (never perfect) accuracy of what is recorded at a larger number of pixels.
Having said that, I urge people to maybe take a step back from the theory and take a look at actual photographs using these various combinations of apertures and photo site densities… and note that what things actually look like as finished products is the ultimate benchmark.
[Or as quote]woofwoof70 wrote:
I'm always a little surprised when people dive deeply into diffraction and discs but if someone is committed to doing this there's the theory and there's taking pictures and looking at the effects. With digital on screen viewing is cheap (but do we really need to look at pictures at 100% on screen?) but prints maybe not so much so.
I do on occasions stop down past f8 to f11 and even beyond and find that the main hit for me is reduced contrast and there's always the sliders if they can help with that. My own opinion is that if you/we want to stop down for reasons of DoF or shutter speed then we should assuming we can still end up with acceptable image quality for our needs. In general I think there's a bit too much fear around this IMO.
EB-1 wrote:
I most always use focus stacking now, usually at f/8. My landscape lenses are typically between 50-500mm, mostly 100-400 range. About 8-12 images are often adequate for stacking prior to stitching. I'd probably focus bracket the a7RVI at f/6.3 or similar for the single frame/composition if necessary. I have not tested how well the increment of one covers depth however.
I suspect that Dan shoots subjects more like me, in UT/AZ/NM/CO and places like that normally on a tripod. MS mode at ISO 100 looks great with the DGO. It certainly has more DR than the 5DsR, which was mostly adequate despite theroetically being lower than some sensors.
EBH
For my landscape photography, that’s exactly right.
(I usually don’t use the tripod for bird photography and I essentially never use it for street/travel, and for those types I don’t shy away from higher ISOs when needed.)
- - -
Another reply to the same EB-1 post was…
aCuria wrote:
What do you think about pixel shift? I was thinking it might be more valuable than focus stacking for landscape photography, while focus stacking seems more useful for macro photography.
Its a pity the A9iii doesn't have pixel shift
Generally, I don’t think pixel shift has a whole lot of value with high resolution full frame cameras. There is obviously the potential plus of wildly higher pixel resolution (and some other stuff), but these high res cameras already have enough resolution to make very good, very large prints without introducing some of the issues that pixel shift can create. (Note: some of those can also be issues with focus bracketing, especially subject motion.)
I think that pixel shift may have more potential value for those using much lower pixel resolution cameras who occasionally want to get much higher pixel resolution. (Your A9 example makes sense.)
- - -
Jack Flesher wrote:
If we have to sample at 2x, doesn’t that imply the airy disc needs to be the inverse, or 0.5 pixel instead of 2?
We’re getting very deep into a thick growth of very tine weeds here, but I think that technically you are right. (Unless the goal is to most accurately record the blur?)
Larger blur will affect the degree of (never perfect) accuracy of what is recorded at a larger number of pixels.
Having said that, I urge people to maybe take a step back from the theory and take a look at actual photographs using these various combinations of apertures and photo site densities… and note that what things actually look like as finished products is the ultimate benchmark.
[Or as quote]woofwoof70 wrote:
I'm always a little surprised when people dive deeply into diffraction and discs but if someone is committed to doing this there's the theory and there's taking pictures and looking at the effects. With digital on screen viewing is cheap (but do we really need to look at pictures at 100% on screen?) but prints maybe not so much so.
I do on occasions stop down past f8 to f11 and even beyond and find that the main hit for me is reduced contrast and there's always the sliders if they can help with that. My own opinion is that if you/we want to stop down for reasons of DoF or shutter speed then we should assuming we can still end up with acceptable image quality for our needs. In general I think there's a bit too much fear around this IMO.
Amen.
ThatGuyAgain wrote:
…those that would prefer to think about taking about photos than actually going and doing it.
“[T]hinking about taking photos” and “actually going and doing it” are both useful parts of the process of making photographs.
EB-1 wrote:
I most always use focus stacking now, usually at f/8. My landscape lenses are typically between 50-500mm, mostly 100-400 range. About 8-12 images are often adequate for stacking prior to stitching. I'd probably focus bracket the a7RVI at f/6.3 or similar for the single frame/composition if necessary. I have not tested how well the increment of one covers depth however.
I suspect that Dan shoots subjects more like me, in UT/AZ/NM/CO and places like that normally on a tripod. MS mode at ISO 100 looks great with the DGO. It certainly has more DR than the 5DsR, which was mostly adequate despite theroetically being lower than some sensors.
EBH
For my landscape photography, that’s exactly right.
(I usually don’t use the tripod for bird photography and I essentially never use it for street/travel, and for those types I don’t shy away from higher ISOs when needed.)
- - -
Another reply to the same EB-1 post was…
aCuria wrote:
What do you think about pixel shift? I was thinking it might be more valuable than focus stacking for landscape photography, while focus stacking seems more useful for macro photography.
Its a pity the A9iii doesn't have pixel shift
Generally, I don’t think pixel shift has a whole lot of value with high resolution full frame cameras. There is obviously the potential plus of wildly higher pixel resolution (and some other stuff), but these high res cameras already have enough resolution to make very good, very large prints without introducing some of the issues that pixel shift can create. (Note: some of those can also be issues with focus bracketing, especially subject motion.)
I think that pixel shift may have more potential value for those using much lower pixel resolution cameras who occasionally want to get much higher pixel resolution. (Your A9 example makes sense.)
- - -
Jack Flesher wrote:
If we have to sample at 2x, doesn’t that imply the airy disc needs to be the inverse, or 0.5 pixel instead of 2?
We’re getting very deep into a thick growth of very tine weeds here, but I think that technically you are right. (Unless the goal is to most accurately record the blur?)
Larger blur will affect the degree of (never perfect) accuracy of what is recorded at a larger number of pixels.
Having said that, I urge people to maybe take a step back from the theory and take a look at actual photographs using these various combinations of apertures and photo site densities… and note that what things actually look like as finished products is the ultimate benchmark.
[Or as quote]woofwoof70 wrote:
I'm always a little surprised when people dive deeply into diffraction and discs but if someone is committed to doing this there's the theory and there's taking pictures and looking at the effects. With digital on screen viewing is cheap (but do we really need to look at pictures at 100% on screen?) but prints maybe not so much so.
I do on occasions stop down past f8 to f11 and even beyond and find that the main hit for me is reduced contrast and there's always the sliders if they can help with that. My own opinion is that if you/we want to stop down for reasons of DoF or shutter speed then we should assuming we can still end up with acceptable image quality for our needs. In general I think there's a bit too much fear around this IMO.
EB-1 wrote:
I most always use focus stacking now, usually at f/8. My landscape lenses are typically between 50-500mm, mostly 100-400 range. About 8-12 images are often adequate for stacking prior to stitching. I'd probably focus bracket the a7RVI at f/6.3 or similar for the single frame/composition if necessary. I have not tested how well the increment of one covers depth however.
I suspect that Dan shoots subjects more like me, in UT/AZ/NM/CO and places like that normally on a tripod. MS mode at ISO 100 looks great with the DGO. It certainly has more DR than the 5DsR, which was mostly adequate despite theroetically being lower than some sensors.
EBH
For my landscape photography, that’s exactly right.
(I usually don’t use the tripod for bird photography and I essentially never use it for street/travel, and for those types I don’t shy away from higher ISOs when needed.)
- - -
Another reply to the same EB-1 post was…
aCuria wrote:
What do you think about pixel shift? I was thinking it might be more valuable than focus stacking for landscape photography, while focus stacking seems more useful for macro photography.
Its a pity the A9iii doesn't have pixel shift
Generally, I don’t think pixel shift has a whole lot of value with high resolution full frame cameras. There is obviously the potential plus of wildly higher pixel resolution (and some other stuff), but these high res cameras already have enough resolution to make very good, very large prints without introducing some of the issues that pixel shift can create. (Note: some of those can also be issues with focus bracketing, especially subject motion.)
I think that pixel shift may have more potential value for those using much lower pixel resolution cameras who occasionally want to get much higher pixel resolution. (Your A9 example makes sense.)
- - -
Jack Flesher wrote:
If we have to sample at 2x, doesn’t that imply the airy disc needs to be the inverse, or 0.5 pixel instead of 2?
We’re getting very deep into a thick growth of very tine weeds here, but I think that technically you are right. (Unless the goal is to most accurately record the blur?)
Larger blur will affect the degree of (never perfect) accuracy of what is recorded at a larger number of pixels.
Having said that, I urge people to maybe take a step back from the theory and take a look at actual photographs using these various combinations of apertures and photo site densities… and note that what things actually look like as finished products is the ultimate benchmark.
Aug 19, 2026 at 10:09 AM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #17091596 « A7R6 and diffraction »
