# DOF and Cropping take 2

Started Feb 11, 2014 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Re: If I might step in

justin23 wrote:

James O'Neill wrote:

awaldram wrote:

F2.8 - f2.8

iso 100 = iso100

OK lets see if we can get bits we agree on.

1. The bending power of the glass - it's focal length - doesn't change with depending on what is behind it, nor does the size of the aperture measured in mm, or the ratio of the aperture size to the focal length - the f/ number. We usually think of aperture as an f/ number rather than a distance.

2. There is a well known, widely used equation which states a lens of focal length d, focused at a distance d, with an f/ number of a will render a point at infinity as a circle whose diameter
c = f^2 / da . None of these terms change with sensor size either.

3. Depending on the format and any cropping applied different sizes of circle will be visible as circles rather than points. Having set the right size c for a given format the equation can be rearranged to give the distance at which the lens can be focused and still have a point at infinity look like a point : this is the hyperfocal distance and other d.o.f calculations depend on it.
H = f^2/ca
; if you increase the sensor width you increase f and c by the same factor. Since F is squared, if you want the same d.o.f, you must increase the f/ number by the same factor. If you increase the f/ number you must use a longer shutter speed or higher ISO

4. There multiple ways to calculate ISO but they are all of the form: find the luminous flux (in Lux seconds) to give a level of exposure and multiply by a constant. For digital it's common to work from the lux seconds to get a pixel to report it's maximum value. If two sensors have the same base ISO it means their pixels will both report "max" for the same number of photons per sq-mm hitting them. If one has smaller pixels then fewer photons will hit each one, and either the sensor must convert them to electrons more efficiently, or it must have a shallower well depth so it reports "max" with fewer pixels (but the same number per sq-mm)

etc etc

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#quick

Joseph James is dangerous, because he talks about aperture diameters which people who aren't on their guard will read as "f/ number" it isn't : it is diameter of the hole in mm. He talks about "total light" which isn't illumination in lux or lux seconds but lux-seconds * area. And so on. He's not actually wrong, but people will argue about two lenses with "the same aperture" using him for support and both will understand different things by "aperture". When we find ourselves at cross purposes with terms like "light" and "Aperture" we're in trouble !

The idea of equivalence is problematic, because you CAN say. If I put my APS-C camera on a tripod with a 50mm lens set to f/8, and expose for 1/4 second with camera set to ISO 100 that will give me the same image as a 35mm film camera loaded with ISO 100 film with a 75mm lens set to f/12 exposed for 1 second. But the differences between film and digital rendering mean they aren't the same even if they are equivalent. By the same token when I compare two digital formats the sensor in the cameras are not identical in enough of their parameters to get the same DR, the Same noise, the same detail so it's massively unlikely that when if we can image equivalence we get the same results in the output.

I agree here and my impression is what is being argued is just what does equivalence actually mean to a photographer. As I've said I shoot with a Q, K5 and 645 and i never ever think in 35 mm terms except maybe for rough calculations on FOV when buying a new lense for example. I know how wide 12,16,18 mm is on the K5, so when looking at say the 08 Q lense, its handy to know just how wide in equivalent FOV it is. Other than that, I really don't think the whole equivalence debate has much to offer in practical terms and when people argue about whether a 200 f2.8 is really a 200 f2.8, I'll just ignore them, because clearly they are driven by some other agenda.

Yep the aergument seem to be

Me

Equivalence = similar

Ian, MC

Equivalence = Equal to

Of cause to use the bottom analogy refuses to allow a larger sensor any advantage and will result in (if equalizing FF to very small sensor) the larger sensor to have a niose deficit .

I'm pretty sure non of the sources quoted assumed anyone would think Equivalence = Equal to.

-- hide signature --

Justin
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/justinwatson

-- hide signature --
awaldram's gear list:awaldram's gear list
Pentax K-x Pentax Q Pentax Q7 Pentax K-3 Pentax smc DA* 55mm F1.4 SDM +15 more
Complain
Post ()
Keyboard shortcuts: