Rethinking 4/3 Depth Of Field

Started Apr 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 18,329Gear list
Like?
Re: Rethinking 4/3 Depth Of Field
In reply to zxaar, Apr 12, 2013

zxaar wrote:

Anders W wrote:

zxaar wrote:

Anders W wrote:

olliess wrote:

Anders W wrote:

exdeejjjaaaa wrote:

Anders W wrote:

At high ISOs, which is what the OP was talking about, the E-M5 set at two stops lower ISO than the FF camera (for equal DoF), will go equal for SNR at midtones but do better with regard to shadow noise/DR in comparison with all current FF cameras except the D4 (where it will be a tie).

it is soundly beaten by DR @ high ISO even by Canon (1Dx).

Please read what both the OP and I were actually talking about. With the E-M5 at ISO 3200 and the 1Dx at ISO 12800 for equal DoF, the E-M5 will come out slightly ahead.

From the DxO measurements that doesn't look to be the case for DR between the 1Dx and the E-M5. Interestingly it looks as if the 1Dx beats out the D4 slightly in DR above ISO 2200 or so..

Yes, you are right. I was too quick when checking the graph. So the D4, 6D, and 1Dx belong to the group that ties with the E-M5, when the E-M5 can shoot at two stops lower ISO for equal DoF. The D800, D600, 5D3, and A99 belong to the group that the E-M5 beats.

in practice it does not really matter.

Of course it does. Why wouldn't it?

Because you have just 1 cam at your hand that has fixed sensor size. So in practice you will shoot what it allows you to.

Sure. With better or equally good results for MFT in the particular scenario we are talking about. Which matters to me.

The FF shooter does not always have to shoot at the DOF that omd would be shooting.

Who said that such was the case? And so what?

Then why is all that comparisons with FF. If it really is not the case then as i said in practice it does not matter.

Apparently, you can't distinguish between "always" and "sometimes". How would you otherwise explain your faulty logic?

The fact is that the FF advantage is a sometimes thing, not an always thing. And that sometimes tables are turned and the smaller sensor has the upper hand.

Lets rephrase it as small sensor is an advantage some times and not all the times, also with given the fact that a larger sensor has more ranges of DOF  possible , it is larger sensor that has advanatges most of the time.

Perfectly fine with me if the comparison does not purport to include bulk and weight. Once it does, MFT has the advantage most of the time for my shooting since it increases the versatility of the equipment I carry rather than leave at home, which in turn translates into better image quality.

If smaller sensor is the one deciding on dof then I would advise the omd users to first shoot with cell phone then calculate equivalent F number based on dof and shoot accordingly. So you are holding a larger sensor camera then it is irrelevant what the smaller sensor camera would be doing there.

When you are holding a specific camera, no matter which, it is of course irrelevant in the shooting situation what you would do with another camera in the same situation. Who has said anything to the contrary?

When choosing between systems, by contrast, it is useful to think of what this or that camera with this or that sensor size could accomplish in different situations.

Yaa thats why we chose a system that has more control or more ranges, that is FF has more DOF control than m43. Hence as a system FF is better than m43.

As I already pointed out, the additional DoF control you get with FF is of value if you need it. I rarely do. Consequently, it is of little value to me. The reduced bulk and weight that MFT gives me, by contrast, is of considerable value.

Further if someone is always looking for deepest dof , he shall be better with pentax q type system, omd does not have small enough sensor for that.

You are putting up one straw-man after another. Noone has said that we should always look for the deepest DoF.

Off course no -one said, I bought it up because as soon as you pit m43 against smaller sensor system a lot of m43 fnaboys take u turn on what they are saying.

Again, if noone said, why did you bring it up? I haven't made any U-turn yet, and I haven't seen others make it either.

The interesting criterion is "deep enough" and "shallow enough" rather than maximally deep. What is deep enough and shallow enough is of course at least partly a matter of personal preferences.

Yes. So all this equilavance talk has no meaning because at the end of the day it is personal whether i like certain photo or not. It does not matter how you would shoot with your m43 system.

Personally, I find the principles of equivalence quite useful. And I certainly care about how I shoot with MFT.

All I can say here is that the DoF I get when shooting fast primes wide open on MFT is frequently deep enough as well as shallow enough (when I want shallow) to fit the bill.

For you.

Yep. I said so.

This in turn means that the benefits of FF would be marginal for my use.

For you.

Yep. I said so.

It also means that Pentax Q would be too small a sensor for my usage. In many cases, I would be locked in with more DoF and more noise than I want.

Exactly, m43 is too small for me. I won't touch m43 cams.

No problem with that. Your call.

Since I know the implications of sensor size in and out since quite a few years, and also know what I typically want/need in terms of DoF since many years,

I also know what I want and that is not m43 sensor size.

Again, I have no problem with that.

I thought these matters through very carefully before taking the plunge into MFT.

I also, thats why I do not like m43.

The sensor size is in this case just on the lower border of what I find acceptable. It works just fine for me in most cases, particularly since the fast MFT primes are in most cases very good already wide open. But I wouldn't want to go any further downwards, not even to the Nikon 1 sensor size. Nor would I want to move in the opposite direction since that just implies marginal benefits but significant costs in terms of bulk/weight.

All you you.

And you.

You see , thats why this thread and all this talk does not really matter , at the end of the day you will do what you like, I will do what I like.

What makes sense is to discuss the facts. One such fact that my previous post served to demonstrate (although you apparently missed it) is that in contrast to what you assumed, DoF control is not a dichotomy. The choice is not between FF (or bigger) at the one end and Pentax Q or a smartphone at the other with nothing in between. There are plenty of choices inbetween and I explained on what ground I am willing to give up the DoF control that distinguishes FF from MFT for significantly less bulk and weight although I am not willing to give up more than that by moving to a still smaller sensor.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +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