Rethinking 4/3 Depth Of Field

Started Apr 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
tt321
Senior MemberPosts: 3,418Gear list
Like?
Re: I'm not convinced...
In reply to Great Bustard, Apr 12, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

tt321 wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

P.S.:  I think the EM5 would come out significantly ahead in situations where it could use IBIS and a longer shutter speed and FF could not use a tripod.

You should be able to get a similar degree of IS with an IS-capable 24-70/2.8.

Sure, and that's one of the nice advantages of FF -- where mFT would require a prime (25 / 1.4, in this case), FF could use a zoom (e.g. Tamron 24-70 / 2.8 VC).  The question, then, is how FF would fare with the zoom wide open compared to mFT with the prime wide open.

The Tamron would lose the contest, as far as centre resolution is concerned, according to Lenstip, but mid-range oddly is the weakest point for that zoom so it's probably abnormal among this type of zooms.

Another issue is that FF lenses tend to peak earlier (e.g. f5.6) than M43 ones (mostly f4) in terms of DoF. So if you require the kind of DoF which a wide open M43 gives you then FF wins (apart from when comparing a prime to a zoom, perhaps) but if you require the kind of DoF provided by f8 on FF then maybe the advantage is with M43. So the FF and M43 political parties could argue with ever finer distinctions of 'DoF control' and cherry pick whatever precise example that fits their own agenda ...

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