Is sensor size an industry wide sham?

Started Jun 2, 2012 | Discussions thread
Contributing MemberPosts: 630Gear list
Re: Shallow DOF is for primes
In reply to Andy Crowe, Jun 3, 2012

Andy Crowe wrote:

There have been many recent discussions and complaints about the current F2.8 zooms not allowing for enough shallow depth of field. Of course the benefit of micro four thirds is the small size of the cameras (mirrorless) and the small size of the lenses (allowed by having a smaller sensor).

What I want to know is why everyone is obsession over the DOF of zoom lenses ?

Because on 35mm all my zoom lenses have great DoF control, even the 17-40mm ultrawide. It is not for primes only. Primes are for the absolute extremes, but good DoF control is simple expected, it's not a special feature.

But I do have very good DoF control on m43, even with the kit lens. It's just that it's available in a more narrow band of focusing distances, focal lengths and apertures. That was one of my objections to the original 4/3 - with ZD 14-54, I did have the capability of reducing DoF, but I only had it in a very narrow band, usually it meant wide open on 54mm, focusing as close as possible.

 danijel973's gear list:danijel973's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Olympus PEN E-PL1 Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM +12 more
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