Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities

Started Apr 10, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Forum ProPosts: 11,977Gear list
Re: On DOF
In reply to Biggs23, Apr 10, 2013

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

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.

My needs are simple: I need to be able to create beautiful images of my clients that also serve the purpose of differentiating me from my competition and those who would seek to be my competition but are not (soccer moms). I do that by employing a variety of photographic techniques including advanced OCF, great exposure, and a wide range of photographic choices including everything from extremely shallow to extremely wide DoF. As such, I need the tool(s) most capable of allowing me to do those things.

I ask for illustrations because talk is cheap.

So wait, now you're asking for examples of my work?

It wasn't you who I'd asked for it. You simply jumped into that conversation, so you might as well.

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."

Except you're ignoring the fact that when you standardize FoV you get more DoF with smaller sensors, not more. I know it's convenient to your argument to ignore that reality, but that doesn't make it forgivable.

I was very specific with my question. Please try again. You will not be responded you if you try another go at a run around on this.

I was very specific with my response. Please try again. You will be responded to every time I feel the need.

This was the point: 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).

What do you find?

Necessarily, actually. For portraits, landscapes, or whatever you very well may choose to shoot closed down a bit but you can always do that on FF, too.

That is my point. I'm trying to investigate this fascination with f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses, however, much less at ultra-wide and wide angle FLs.

What needs investigation? Many people like the look of shallow DoF, which is easier to accomplish on bodies with larger sensors. Pretty simple really.

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.

Really? You NEED photography? You'll die without it?

Would you die if you didn't want photography?

So, in response to my question I'm assuming the answer is that you wouldn't die without photography, thus proving my point that it's a want versus a need.

Do you happen to not understand or value "need"? Not every need or want is about life versus death.

Excuse me for asking for logical responses.

No need to excuse you, I've been happy to provide them for you in the last several threads!

No, it was because I genuinely didn't know how big it was. As for backing something up I see no need for the poster to provide one of HIS photographs to back up a point. As long as SOMEONE'S photographs exist to prove the point, and they do, there's no need to be poster specific, just as I posted proof in the form of someone else's video in a previous thread.

And I didn't mind providing the information you asked for even though. But with my questions, you show up with an attitude demanding "what do you want to prove"?

I did? Could you quote the post where that occurred?

Is it a stretch for you to demonstrate why you make a point that you do?


Is it a stretch for you to back up your words with your work?

You are indeed avoiding the point.

I'm asking for something. That isn't avoiding in my world.

You're asking for something that you don't need or even want. It's a strange form of a straw man argument.

You don't decide what I need or want. I asked you to provide something. It is up to you to accept the challenge, or run away from it. You've chosen the latter.

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

I have been, and the more discussion occurs the more it becomes apparent that the above statement is true.

Parroting something isn't a substitute for discussion.

Agreed, which is why I'm continually confused as to why you'd call what you're doing 'discussing'.

I am not surprised.

 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