06-29-2012, 06:44 AM
Nothing wrong with the 28mm here.
Try Google and learn about 'circle of confusion' and how it effects 'depth of field'. You may find out how Kodak 30 or 40 years ago 'invented' the commonly used depth of field calculations and realize that the underlying assumptions for circle of confusion calculations are not much valid anymore.
As a shortcut you can try a dept of field calculator like dofmaster. Use the 0.006mm pixel size of the D3x used for this images as circle of confusion and NOT the commonly used 0.03mm for 24x36mm/FX or the camera model. The calculated distances should explain why the depth of field is rather thin with today's high resolution digital cameras even with a 28mm at f/8 set to 2-3m if you view images at 100% on a monitor or print big.
Try Google and learn about 'circle of confusion' and how it effects 'depth of field'. You may find out how Kodak 30 or 40 years ago 'invented' the commonly used depth of field calculations and realize that the underlying assumptions for circle of confusion calculations are not much valid anymore.
As a shortcut you can try a dept of field calculator like dofmaster. Use the 0.006mm pixel size of the D3x used for this images as circle of confusion and NOT the commonly used 0.03mm for 24x36mm/FX or the camera model. The calculated distances should explain why the depth of field is rather thin with today's high resolution digital cameras even with a 28mm at f/8 set to 2-3m if you view images at 100% on a monitor or print big.