All photos were taken at f/2.8. You can see the relationship between focus point and depth of view at the front and at the back of the focus.

In my camera test for some of the top compact film cameras, http://www.pbase.com/middlehill/contax_t3_vs_contax_g2g35_vs_leica_minilux_vs_minolta_tc1_test_1 http://www.pbase.com/middlehill/contax_t3_vs_contax_g2g35_vs_leica_minilux_vs_minolta_tc1_test_2 I receive some comments about the fairness of the test. What is suggested is that the longer the focal length, the better the sharpness. From this assumption, Minilux MUST be the winner in the tests because it has the longest focal length (40mm) when it is compared to Contax T3 (35mm) and Minolta TC-1 (28mm). I do agree with this assumption to a certain degree, but is it REALLY true that a camera with a longer focal length must have a sharper image than that with a shorter focal length? The below test was therefore carried out aiming to find the relationship. All the below pictures were taken with Canon EOS 5D. One zoom lens and two primes lens were used. All pictures were captured in RAW. Only resizing and levelling was applied to the images. Let's see the results.

If a photo is overexposured, by how much degree could a raw file still be capable to be corrected by PS without significate loss in detail/colour in highlight areas? Look at the reflection in the lid. My answer is +3EV.