Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities

Started Apr 10, 2013 | Discussions thread
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 10,897Gear list
Like?
Re: On DOF
In reply to Biggs23, Apr 10, 2013

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

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.

Whether it's negligible depends on who you ask. However, as for 'needing' something, NO ONE 'needs' photographs. No one 'needs' this format or that one. Instead, they 'want' it. They want this look or that look, this angle or that angle.

I'm asking you. Illustrate your needs for me please.

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.

You're stating something alright, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it 'simple' or a 'fact'. Are you aware of how DoF actually occurs?

Stick with the argument made, when responding to one. Use DOFMaster or iDOF Calc and get back to me regarding DOF achieved from a 135mm f/2.8 lens used on APS-C and then on FF body, from minimum focusing distance (assume 1m).

Which would lead you to my response (highlight just below), a point you two are arguing against.

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).

True, macro photography is the one area where smaller sensors have at least some advantage.

Not necessarily, actually. But that is besides the point. Even for portraits, and landscapes, you will choose to not shoot wide open for similar reasons.

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"?

As covered above, ALL photography is about 'want' over 'need'.

Not to me. There is a rational side that must be weighed in as well and especially when we're discussing such things as sensor size, apertures, focal lengths and expecting observable results out of it.

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

joejack951 wrote:

Yes it is, and you get even more control with FF. Try matching a 24mm f/1.4 on FF (a combination that even wide open has a good amount of DOF) with a crop camera.

Provide me with a photograph you've taken with such combination so we have something to work with.

You're asking him to provide a photograph but if he did so, then what? What would it prove? Besides, even if he did you'd probably ignore it entirely as you did to the 'proof' photograph that I provided in previous thread a week or two ago. The only reason you ask for a photo is so that if he doesn't provide it you can say 'well, it must not really matter because you haven't done that', even if the concept itself is 100% valid.

It would prove several things. For example, you wanted me to provide measurements of a system. Was it to prove something? I'm simply curious to see the point of super fast wide/ultra wide lenses especially when a person is relying on it to make a point. Its not a stretch to expect people backing up their points with photographs in a photography forum, is it?

There are times when wide open at f/1,4 on full frame (or wide open at f/2.8 or f/4 depending on the lens) that I wish I had less DOF, or am happy with the amount I have. Using an APS-C camera would then mean that I'd have more DOF than I desired.

Give me an example.

Same story as above.

Avoidance.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that, as perfectly illustrated above with your pictures and question about necessity of a 50mm f/1.4, just because you are happy with your APS-C results doesn't mean that everyone else has to be?

This isn't about trying to make you happy, or sad. This is about discussing pros and cons of systems.

Right, which we've done at length. MILC and similar have a size, weight, and some macro advantages. FF has all the rest. Should we just leave it at that?

You can choose to. Or, you can choose to discuss.

 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