MFT Users: Do you miss the shallower depth-of-field of bigger sensor cameras?

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 22,569
Like?
Re: MFT Users: Do you miss the shallower depth-of-field of bigger sensor cameras?
In reply to Godfrey, 5 months ago

Godfrey wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

The problem is that you can't always get what you want (I believe the Stones wrote a song about that ). So, you change the focal length, subject distance, f-ratio, and shutter speed until you arrive at the best compromise with the system you are using. Kinda common sense, really.

I always get what I want when it comes to camera equipment. It does mean that I have to have a lot of different equipment to choose from.

Well excuse me! 

I'm not a fan of "magic" except as a form of entertainment. Differences between systems can be understood and quantified. Often, however, the measurements are not available (e.g. sensor efficiency, bokeh, etc.) so you can't know what the difference might be until use and compare.

For example, let's say we know Lens A on Sensor A is sharper than Lens B on Sensor B, 'cause we've seen the MTF-50 tests. So we buy Lens A, assuming it is better, then find that it has inconsistent AF, resulting in photos that are slightly OOF, making it softer unless we manually focus it.

So, no "magic" -- just something important that wasn't measured, resulting in the opposite of what we thought was going to be the case due to insufficient information.

So you don't like magic and want to quantify and measure everything. Seems an awfully barren world to me when you reduce everything to a bunch of numbers. And I hold a degree in a mathematics...

In terms of objective elements of IQ, I think it's pretty straight forward.  However, I would hope that you would agree with me when I say that IQ is, at best, merely a component of what makes a photo "successful".  Indeed, more than a few of my favorite photos have absolutely horrid IQ, for example:

And more than a few of my photos have top-notch IQ but are uninteresting by pretty much anyone's standards.

I study and measure up to the appropriate point of understanding. Then I look beyond numbers and measurement to know the aesthetics of what I'm working with. I call that magic ... it works for me.

I like to know which numbers are relevant, and how the numbers correspond to the visual properties of the final photo.  However, as much as I discuss the elements of IQ on DPR, for me, personally, I always keep IQ in context with the impact of the photo.  And, I have to say, it is a rare day indeed when IQ either makes or breaks a photo for me.  The vast majority of the time, no matter how good the IQ is, the photo still sucks, or no matter how bad the IQ is, I still like it.

But this pleasant discussion has gone way off base from the question posed by the OP. "Do you miss the shallower DoF of bigger sensor cameras?" is what was asked. My answer is no, I choose to use FT for its unique FoV-DoF coupling, and choose focal lengths and lens openings accordingly.

Sure.  However, I think the ensuing discussion is worth having, and relevant to the OP.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
NopeNew
Yes.New
Hmm.New
YesNew
YesNew
NoNew
YesNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow