[PuxaVida]

[quote name='wim' timestamp='1288629132' post='3889']

This is actually an opinion, not truth. The guys who wrote this article have been proven wrong by others who weren't as publicized as these guys. If this stuff really was true, we would have seen exactly the same effects with film. Why did we never hear about this? Furthermore CoC and Airy disk are directly related, if not the same. it actually goes a little too far for me to have a discussion about this here, so I want to leave it at that, if you don't mind too much.

[/quote]



Hi Wim,



the reference for my statements were:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm and mostly:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm



The cornerstone of their statement, which compares the size of the airy disk (diffraction pattern) with pixel size of the sensor came logical to me. Because if the pixel size is smaller than the airy disk, then the diffused photons will be collected by the neighbour pixel, which might alter the real image because of the color recognition concept of the bayer filter. Can this be a problem also for the film?



The amount and cause of diffraction is based on the size of the entrance pupil, that's a fact. But beyond that, I'm trying to understand the effects of diffraction on IQ given that sensors might have different pixel sizes and areas. If you think that this is not the place to discuss this, please send me the links you have so that I can read and learn.



PS: Thanks for the correction regarding the macro comparison.



Kind regards,



Serkan