Rethinking 4/3 Depth Of Field

Started Apr 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
Rriley
Forum ProPosts: 21,846Gear list
Like?
Re: It really isn't.
In reply to Great Bustard, Apr 13, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

Rriley wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Alumna Gorp wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Alumna Gorp wrote:

Have a read at this.

http://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/2/

...and made a few notes on some of his opinions:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50805880

No bleeding you again

That's right -- I had forgotten we had crossed paths before:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51210089

By the way, here's a current case-in-point as to why an understanding of Equivalence is useful for many:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51275066

Seems that f/2.8 isn't f/2.8 after all, eh? 

at some point some lenses will
where DoF is settled to be satisfactory as opposed to absolute, and 2.8 (in this case) is the minimum aperture a lens offers, 2.8 does indeed = 2.8

No, it's just the best that it can do.

astro is a good example, where stars are so far away that f/2.8 lens can be set to infinity and no closer DoF need be considered. And as it happens there is a shutter speed limit of 20 seconds before stars becomes lines or streaks.

Exposure is dominant in such a calculation, and DoF is deemed achievable and satisfactory

But even when DOF doesn't matter (either because we don't care, or the whole of the scene is well within the DOF even at wide apertures), it's still not about exposure, but about the total amount of light collected:

exposure is the only governance left if DoF doesnt matter

Total Light Collected = Exposure x Effective Sensor Area x QE

So, exposure is relevant only inasmuch as it is a component of the total light collected.

'exposure is relevant only inasmuch as it is a component of the total light collected' - ridiculous long winded pedantry,  - 'exposure is the relevant component of the light collected'

If for some reason greater DoF is required (including part of a landscape) smaller sensors are likely to benefit from this restraint having inherently greater DoF, for a given shutter speed and limited widest aperture (f/2.8).

Smaller sensor systems have not "inherently greater DOF" except when we are in apertures deep into diffraction territory (past f/22 equivalent on FF).  For example, if someone is shooting f/8 on mFT for DOF reasons, then the FF photographer would simply shoot f/16.

why do you imagine anything else that what Ive given
the restraint is an exposure 20 secs or less as fstops at any aperture are immaterial
given that, what on earth do you think you would be doing shooting at f/22

On the other hand, if the mFT photographer was shooting f/22, the FF photographer cannot shoot f/44 (f/45), so the mFT system would have a DOF advantage.  That said, if "high IQ" is important, then both the mFT and FF photographers would make use of focus stacking, which, incidentally, was just discussed in a nice article here on DPR:

you dont seem to grasp what the issues are here.
you dont get the opportunity for more than one exposure as the earth has rotated relative to the ground, ie the sky ~ 'stars' are now in another location, another exposure is worthless

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5717972844/focus-stacking-in-macro-photography

-- hide signature --

Riley
any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'

 Rriley's gear list:Rriley's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Olympus E-3 Olympus E-5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 +1 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