[wim]

From luminous landscape:

https://luminous-landscape.com/wp-conten...TABLA3.jpg

 

Thus if we are using the fairly strict criterias, it's all downhill for MFT from f/5.6 onward (a bit earlier than that for longer wavelengths (red) actually).

Now is that a real problem ? Well, why should you stop down to f/8 (aka "f/16") on MFT anyway (other than to reduce vignetting on a slow lens) ? 

 

Ref:

https://luminous-landscape.com/do-sensor...ve-lenses/

 

No, it is never a problem, to be very honest.

 

Even a bad lens profits from a sensor with a higher pixel density, up to a point anyway, basically because the system will be able to image the picture it projects closer to its own resolution limit, whether we get to or over the diffraction limit at a certain aperture. Note that the only real limit for sensors with regard to diffraction limit is the Nyquist frequency, the limit for lenses is determined by quality of the glass, and aperture, and the latter is what determines the size of the Airy disks, in theory anyway.

 

As to using smaller apertures, as long as we stay at or above resolution a good amateur could get from comparative film, i.e., 30 lp/mm, or for a professional about double that, we are fine. And that equates to about 6 MP and 12 MP respectively. If somehow that was not the case, our pictures would be unprintable, or unviewable - and this is where the whole discussion on "sensor diffraction limits", and "sensors outresolving lenses" is completely flawed. The same could be said about film, and somehow we never really did - but then, that was mostly before the internet, and before pxelpeeping .

 

Even with smaller apertures, or maybe not such good lenses or sensors, at lower resolution, in the end it is about getting a picture, or not getting a picture.

 

Kind regards, Wim

 

P.S.: For sake of reference, I used 1600 lp/mm as a reference point for diffraction, as Norman Koren indicates. In the LuLa article they use 1490, but that is also for a slightly longer wavelength .