Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities

Started Apr 10, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
neil holmes
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,643Gear list
Re: On DOF
In reply to Erik Magnuson, Apr 10, 2013

Erik Magnuson wrote:

neil holmes wrote:

C) To increase the exposure to reduce noise

And here is actually and ADVANTAGE of smaller sensors in practical use for a lot of people.

Put a good fast lens on a smaller sensor and it remains a good fast lens...especially when a lens that gets the same angle of view is not made as fast for FF (think 85 1.2 ETC).    You "lose" the ability to have dof thinner than it otherwise could (but still thin enough???)  but you get to use lower isos/higher shutter speeds.

You are not thinking this through - you can get the same DOF/shutter speed/noise by stopping down the fast lens on FF but increasing the ISO.


You are right, to a point...depends on the camera...6mp kodak FF? (the other part of my argument that it depends on the camera not sensor size).

Put it this way, on my Q that 85 is gives a 480mm angle of view....with 1.2 shutter speed and while the Q might not be a great camera at iso 6400 it does not have to be.   For MORE money, I could buy a lens that would give me aprox 480mm on FF but I would be at 5.6 at best.   That DOF would still be shallower than the 85 1.2 on the Q I think but so what, the Q is still  shallow enough for subject isolation easily  wide open especially (or stopped down a little) Also, it still focuses down to 3 feet and the FF lens would not focus anywhere near as close.....At 5.6 and iso 6400 and 1/50 on the FF, I can be at 1.4, iso 1600 and 1/100.

1/50 at 480mm and you wanna be on a tripod or drugs.   The much smaller 85 on the Q can easily be hand held at 1/100 (and is stabilized as well (if I could be bothered yet to get the firmware update).

Of course a FF and 400 2.8/500 f4 or 300mm 2.8 on apsc will be much better IQ but again, at a huge cost and size and in a lot of situation not useable when the Q with 85 can be.

And of course I COULD put that 400 2.8 on the Q....

And if you want a bit more dof as well, well you can have that to...with FF you would have to stop down for the dof increase and lose the shutter speed

Simply increase the ISO - FF sensors typically have less noise (for the same brand/generation of camera.)

Yes, but most people do not buy the lastest camera when it comes out....and sensors in smaller cameras are good ENOUGH these days.....even my Q with tiny P&S (but good one) sensor is better to me than film was for shooting concerts.

As i have said before, I think the dof argument in favour of FF is over rated (and yes, many want it....including me) and for others the dof argument in FAVOUR of crop sensors is a bigger plus (including me).

Unfortunately, there is no real DOF argument in favor is crop sensors (see above.)  There is often a size/weight advantage and the DOF disadvantage may not be something you need often, but otherwise FF offers more versatility - particularly when it comes to lens choices.

I disagree, being able to use a faster shutter speed is something that i would rather any day over a slight deepening of Dof.

And the size thing IS A HUGE plus for smaller caameras....i want all though....three cameras (differnt formats), three lenses (to fit all might be what I end up with

Gotta go to work....

-- hide signature --


 neil holmes's gear list:neil holmes's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Sony Alpha 7 Sony Alpha 7S Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L +21 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