The Other Side of Depth of Field

Started Apr 25, 2012 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,248
Like?
Careful now...
In reply to Klarno, Apr 25, 2012

...people might start confusing you with Joseph James with talk like that.

Great post!

Klarno wrote:

For me, it's neither a positive nor a negative. It is what it is. You do what you can to work with it either way.

So you say you can get a deeper depth of field for the same f/number value with a smaller format, or the same depth of field for a smaller f/number, or any number of ways to rephrase the same thing? That's true, but then you're placing undue emphasis on the f/number. With a full frame camera, you can just as easily raise the ISO value by two stops and again get the same exposure with the same depth of field, and have pretty much the same sensor-level image quality.

For the same number of photosites, you also get the same diffraction for the same depth of field. Where on full frame you might consider diffraction unacceptable at f/22, on m4/3 you would then consider it unacceptable at f/11 (with the same angle of view, of course).

The size and cost advantage still becomes the most relevant thing in favor of MFT. A micro four thirds camera with a 12mm f/2.0 lens set to f/5.6 at ISO 200 is much smaller and less expensive than a full frame camera with a 24mm f/2.8 set to f/11 at ISO 800.

And the advantage on the other hand of the full frame camera with ISO 100 is that it's a noise and DR equivalent to the micro four thirds camera's ISO 25 (and shutter speed equivalent too, at the same depth of field). Show me the MFT camera with ISO 25 and then this too will become irrelevant.
--
http://www.photoklarno.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow