Unfortunately, DxO doesn't have a module for the 100-500mm yet and so you can't use their lens sharpness tool. I am using Topaz to sharpen as it's much better than Adobe's tools. The 100-400mm II, 400mm DO II DxO modules work with the R5 and sharpen up nicely. DxO are a pain being slow with new models, but it makes you appreciate it when you can use it again.
Just yesterday I was taking some shots of the woods with the 100–400mm II and messing around with Av mode to vary depth of field. I took one shot at f/36 for grins. The variable aperture works on both ends, so you can get f/36 at 400mm but not 100mm.
Not nearly as much as the noise did at 12,800 ISO. The result, when resized for posting was good enough that I put it in the winter thread.
The size is also effected by the wave length of light, red being larger which makes diffraction slightly worse, and is an unfortunate aspect of physics as landscape photography is often at its best during the 'golden hour'.
Although Fourier Transform is the standard procedure for analysing diffraction patterns, you don't need it to understand diffraction. Sir Lawrence Bragg, the founding father of solving the structures of crystals, including proteins, by X-ray diffraction, for which he got the Nobel Prize in 1915, formulated Bragg's law from the most simple of equations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Bragg (As an aside, I met him in the 1970s, and isn't it remarkable that people alive today could have met someone who won a Nobel prize 106 years ago.) Airy solved the equations for the Airy Disc diffraction using just differential calculus, without Fourier Transforms, and published it in Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society in 1834. I recommend downloading the volume https://archive.org/details/transactionsofca05camb as it contains some remarkable papers.
Perhaps we could get Craig'a phrase substitution to incorporate your interpretation,
. There are two extreme types of physicists; those who develop theories etc by simple force of mathematics, and those who think their way into a problem using intuition and visualisation, and then find the maths to continue. Einstein and Feynman are examples of the latter. Schwinger, who shared the Nobel Prize with Feynman, is an example of the former. I need to understand in my mind what is going on and I am pretty poor mathematician.I can't say that I quite understand your first sentence. But just in case somebody took offence, I was just poking fun at the poster for using glossing over the 'truly awful' maths as criticism. Essentially ignoring that there is value in understanding the effect somethig has, even if its origin and inner workings remain a mystery. After all, Newtonian physics is still highly relevant despite not 'accuratelty' describing why things like for example gravity do what they do. Nothing too serious, I just found it funny.Perhaps we could get Craig'a phrase substitution to incorporate your interpretation,
It was the way he set about it. For example, for Special Relativity he began by imagining what would happen to time etc if he was sitting on a beam of light, observing events and then thinking his way through the consequences, and then getting involved in more and more complex mathematics and General Relativity. He once said, In physics, imagination is more important than knowledge. I think this was a riposte to Max Planck who had earlier written that Experiment is the only means of knowledge at our disposal, the rest is poetry, imagination (both quoted from memory). The opposite approach is to start with equations and solve them and see where it leads.
That is my understanding. Some people actually develop a theory by intuition and then set out to do the math. I find answers to simple problems pop into my head, then I do the math and I'm pretty close. My math ability is pretty poor. I managed to make it thru advanced math in engineering school in the mid 1960's. We used slide rules and mechanical calculators. It was difficult and a lengthy process to solve some of the problems that required multiple iterations. I never want to do that again.
Slide rules taught me a lot more than just low precision multiplication. They showed the beauty of logarithms, and how they could apply to all sorts of things in real life. Like the intensity of sound or perceived brightness - it's all logarithmic. And why just mention multiplication without mentioning division? And what about the "old school" way of teaching us how to do long division on paper? Or finding square roots on paper? It taught more than just a method to forget once obsolete, but how interesting tricks could be figured out to solve difficult problems.
Your cell phone may have more computing power than NASA had in 1969.Slide rules taught me a lot more than just low precision multiplication. They showed the beauty of logarithms, and how they could apply to all sorts of things in real life. Like the intensity of sound or perceived brightness - it's all logarithmic. And why just mention multiplication without mentioning division? And what about the "old school" way of teaching us how to do long division on paper? Or finding square roots on paper? It taught more than just a method to forget once obsolete, but how interesting tricks could be figured out to solve difficult problems.
Oh well, it's time to go back to typing on my multi-core Apple computer with more abilities than probably existed when they put a man on the moon!
I hated things like Bessel Functions where we had to do calculations on those huge old mechanical calculators that could multiply and divide to many decimal places but we did it over and over and had to get every one of the many digits put in correctly. They were needed for wave propagation theory. In my case, it wasn't light waves, but electromagnetic waves.Slide rules taught me a lot more than just low precision multiplication. They showed the beauty of logarithms, and how they could apply to all sorts of things in real life. Like the intensity of sound or perceived brightness - it's all logarithmic. And why just mention multiplication without mentioning division? And what about the "old school" way of teaching us how to do long division on paper? Or finding square roots on paper? It taught more than just a method to forget once obsolete, but how interesting tricks could be figured out to solve difficult problems.
Oh well, it's time to go back to typing on my multi-core Apple computer with more abilities than probably existed when they put a man on the moon!
Slide rules taught me a lot more than just low precision multiplication. They showed the beauty of logarithms, and how they could apply to all sorts of things in real life. Like the intensity of sound or perceived brightness - it's all logarithmic. And why just mention multiplication without mentioning division? And what about the "old school" way of teaching us how to do long division on paper? Or finding square roots on paper? It taught more than just a method to forget once obsolete, but how interesting tricks could be figured out to solve difficult problems.
Oh well, it's time to go back to typing on my multi-core Apple computer with more abilities than probably existed when they put a man on the moon!
