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

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,223
Like?
Just answered...
In reply to rhlpetrus, 5 months ago

rhlpetrus wrote:

Except for FL translation, most other aspects of equivalence are irrelevant for most people, so larger means better, generally, in IQ aspects. Why is more DoF better than less Dof? Ask a wedding or a sports photog and they will tell you that shallow DoF is required for their business. Many PJs also like to isolate politicians and personalities, so events shooters will also like less DoF. Many landscapers, otoh, will like more DoF.

People with brand/format agendas are the ones that like to bring these "equivalence" findings to the fore.

...those exact objections upthread:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53250472

Many people are of the opinion that all that matters is framing and exposure. Equivalence, on the other hand, maintains that perspective, framing, DOF, motion blur, and the amount of light projected on the sensor are all important, which is not to say, of course, that all are equally important for all photos.

In any case:

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

So while no two photos from two different systems will ever be equal, Equivalent photos from different systems will be as similar as photos from different systems will get. Clearly, however, the point of choosing one system over another is not simply to get photos as close as possible to other systems (equivalent photos), but to get photos that look "better" (in each photographer's opinion) to what other systems can deliver (non-equivalent photos), or for the differences in operation (AF speed/accuracy, size, weight, frame rate, build, price, etc.).

We can compare systems in many different ways. The five parameters of Equivalence (same perspective, framing, DOF, shutter speed, and display size) are simply guidelines to comparing systems on the basis of the most similar visual properties of the final photo, and are certainly not a mandate that systems must be compared in such a fashion. Therefore, it is important to specify the purpose of the comparison, and then not artificially handicap one or the other system with the conditions of the comparison. Of course, this is not to say that there are not most certainly instances where a photographer is limited due to size, weight, and/or finances and would therefore compare systems within those constraints. However, it is important to interpret the results of the comparison in the context of the circumstances where the conditions of the comparison are valid.

The point of photography is making photos. As such, one doesn't choose the particular system to get images which are equivalent to another system. A person chooses a particular system for the best balance of the factors that matter to the them, such as price, size, weight, IQ, DOF range, available lenses, and/or operation. By understanding which settings on which system create equivalent images, the difference in their capabilities is more easily understood.

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