please help macro

[cgipson1]

Aye I totally agree that there is a big divide between "usable" photos and "unusable" photos, which is why the diffraction limits are always a bit of a grey playground with regard to where different photographers place the limits on their work. The 100% crops help a lot though as they do clearly show that the finer details are starting to be lost in the f32 photo, details that I'd, personally, prefer to keep; but that other photographers might feel no need to preserve (they might not show up in their regular medium of presentation such as web photos or prints) .

Yessir.. there is always a tradeoff.. more diffraction vs more DOF.... more noise vs. light sensitivity... etc.... I am still waiting for camera that will have no DOF limitations, and will give full color, razor sharp shots in the dark! lol! (and that I will be able to afford it!)

 

[jrice12]

Not sure we can do diffraction limit tests with shots of bugs . Too much variation between shots, don't have high res areas in same focal plane, etc. etc. Need a resolution chart and so forth. Would also need to compare to lower f-numbers, etc. I have found that my Canon EF 100mm/f2.8 begins to drop off above f11 and becomes noticable in the field after f16. By f22 it becomes objectionable with tripod mount with still subjects with lots of HF content. Remember, diffraction limits are not a hard cutoff but a gradual degradation of the image HF content. So how it effects the image depends on the image itself and whether or not other factors (motion blur, etc.) are over-riding it. It would be good to do a limit test for each lens you have so you know where you stand, but the decision to go higher on f-stop should be made on the DOF needs of the subject rather than solely on diffraction limits.

For the shot at hand (spider) I thought the DOF looked fine but may have been over-riden by the high ISO and graininess.

 

[cgipson1]

Not sure we can do diffraction limit tests with shots of bugs . Too much variation between shots, don't have high res areas in same focal plane, etc. etc. Need a resolution chart and so forth. Would also need to compare to lower f-numbers, etc. I have found that my Canon EF 100mm/f2.8 begins to drop off above f11 and becomes noticable in the field after f16. By f22 it becomes objectionable with tripod mount with still subjects with lots of HF content. Remember, diffraction limits are not a hard cutoff but a gradual degradation of the image HF content. So how it effects the image depends on the image itself and whether or not other factors (motion blur, etc.) are over-riding it. It would be good to do a limit test for each lens you have so you know where you stand, but the decision to go higher on f-stop should be made on the DOF needs of the subject rather than solely on diffraction limits.

For the shot at hand (spider) I thought the DOF looked fine but may have been over-riden by the high ISO and graininess.

Can't argue with you there! As I said, these were just some test shots with a new lens. Not meant for serious comparison purposes... just responding to Overread!

I seriously do agree that ISO is the primary issue with the OP's spider....

 

[shootnride]

Thank you very much for all that information and then some.
Those pictures are sick! I hope with some R&D i can have my pictures looking this good.
You guy's been great and give me hope.
I will post more in the near future once i learn a little more.
Again guy's Big thanks

Shootnride,,,,,,,