Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities

Started Apr 10, 2013 | Discussions thread
Senior MemberPosts: 8,906Gear list
Re: On DOF
In reply to Biggs23, Apr 10, 2013

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

joejack951 wrote:

No, it exists at all focal lengths. For any given field of view and aperture used, FF has an advantage when trying to minimize DOF. Smaller systems suffer even more at the extremes because there aren't as many high end lens choices there as there are for FF.

With APS-C sensor, and faster lenses, I usually end up ensuring proper DoF while maintaining a good isolation. That is the beauty of being able to control DoF.

Which can be controlled even more with a larger sensor.

Of course, and the advantage is negligible. Hence my reasoning against the commonly held idea of "NEEDING" something like f/1.2.

The following image has no value but only to demonstrate DOF, which is barely "a fly deep":

You've demonstrated the one place where the add DOF of a smaller format can be an advantage: close up/macro photography. At a larger distance to subject, the more shallow DOF of FF can be very welcome.

You do realize the point I made, that the same lens on FF would have a deeper DoF at the same distance, no?

Not an apples to apples comparison and you know it.

Simply stating a fact. Do you disagree with it? If so, I would LOVE to hear more on it, rather than thinking apples and oranges and going bananas with them for irrelevant arguments.

And that is APS-C. The same lens on 35mm sensor will actually have a deeper DoF due to a wider FoV.

Only if you didn't move any closer to keep the subject framing the same (in which case, assuming you were not limited by minimum focus distance, you'd have less DOF in the FF shot). If you cropped the FF file to match the APS-C image, you'd have the same DOF.

You would have to move closer with FF (if the lens' minimum focusing distance allows) to get the same framing and DoF in that case.

Exactly, which would result in narrower DoF on the FF, not more.

Which may not be a good thing (a reason you don't see macro photography at wide open apertures... the idea is not to have the thinnest possible DoF). That, of course assumes you can override Physics and overcome the lens' minimum focusing distance. You could, use a longer focal length lens though (in this case, 200mm). And you will need the lens to be faster than f/4 (or you will simply match 135mm f/2.8 on APS-C).

Why exactly would you need 50mm f/1.4 on FF?

If you wanted that focal length and aperture? That's a very confusing question, perhaps you meant it to be rhetorical?

Perhaps the most convincing argument you may have made. Its all about "want"?

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +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