Potential dead horse: how bad is FF's deep DoF disadvantage?

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
The Incredible Hoke
Contributing MemberPosts: 788
Like?
Re: Potential dead horse: how bad is FF's deep DoF disadvantage?
In reply to sportyaccordy, 9 months ago

sportyaccordy wrote:

DoF is entirely a product of the aperture diameter. So a 24mm F4 will have the same DoF as 48mm F8, 12mm F2 etc etc.

As someone explained to me in another thread, for equivalent photos this phenomenon cancels out larger formats' high ISO advantage for completely equivalent pictures. For example to maintain shutter speeds, that 24mm F4 on an FF camera will need to be shot at 2 ISO stops higher than 12mm F2 on an MFT camera. At which point the noise on the FF is at best the same but in some cases worse if we are talking very high ISOs.

So my question is, for folks who have used an array of different formats extensively, how much does this affect real world shooting? Did you ever find yourself frustrated with the inability to get deep DoF from larger formats, or is it not that big of a deal?

It seems to me more and more like no format is superior to another... they all have advantages and disadvantages that make them better for different kinds of photography, with no clear all around winner

For digital it never really bothers me. And you are right the different formats all have advantages and disadvantages. I use a FF DSLR and it doesn't affect how I shoot. I like the shallow DoF most of the time and it gives me just enough DoF for landscapes and that type of shooting.

But when I shoot portraits with my 8x10 it's an issue! Shooting portraits at f16-22 gets squirrely, especially with ISO 100 film. 

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
ZeroNew
(unknown member)
DustNew
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow