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

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
sportyaccordy
Contributing MemberPosts: 947
Like?
Re: Tradeoffs
In reply to MediaArchivist, 4 months ago

MediaArchivist wrote:

lumigraphics wrote:

Engineering is about trade-offs. There is no way to design a product that is perfect for every use case.

I personally shoot full-frame DSLR partly BECAUSE of the ability to get shallower DOF than with APS-C. If I could afford it, I'd get my hands on one of the new Hasselblads with the Sony sensor and that would be a benefit.

I shot landscapes on 645 film for years and thought the tradeoffs were right for my usage. I know how to get shallow or deep DOF if I need it for a particular shot.

I don't understand the "I don't use/like/understand [insert style or technology], therefore based on my tastes it is bad/disadvantage/silly" proclamations. We'll just add "shallow DoF" to the list:

  • mirror
  • mirrorless
  • megapixels
  • OSS
  • IBIS
  • sensor size
  • ETTR
  • flash
  • HDR
  • PP
  • cropping
  • prime lens
  • zoom lens
  • BIF
  • portrait
  • landscape
  • IR
  • CPL
  • ...
-- hide signature --

Want a roXplosion!?

He was just explaining why he shoots FF. He didn't put down any other formats to do so. As opposed to Ontario Gone, who dismissed FF to validate his usage of MFT. There is an appreciable difference between "this works for me" and "i use this instead of that because that doesnt work for anybody". The latter is what I have a problem with.

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