How many want a narrow DOF?

[Ryan21]

With all the talk about the 4/3 standard having larger DOF doesn't anyone actually see that as a benefit? I know I do. When I shoot with my pinhole camera DOF that is unique to those cameras and I like the effect. For landscapes wouldn't the 4/3's standard be favorable? I dunno, I am just musing. Anyone have any thoughts?

Thanks,

R

 

[S N Green]

You only need so much to stop the lens down to where DoF becomes infinity. Especially when the subject is not close, which is mostly case for landscapes. If you see it as benefit then everyone has it. Not sure what the thread is about.

• Sergey

 

[JoannaK]

Imho: image quality (jpegs, color and corner sharpness) and nice handling are important.

 

[Ryan21]

Well considering the equivalent from 35mm sensors the 4/3 standard at any given aperture is going to have a larger DOF. So if I need to shoot something at F11 with the 35mm then I will get away with the same result using a larger aperture with the 4/3s standard. This gives me more light=faster shutter speeds/low ISO. So can't it be of any advantage in this sense? Perhaps not just in Landscape photography where I shoot at F16-22.

R

 

[S N Green]

Well considering the equivalent from 35mm sensors the 4/3 standard at
any given aperture is going to have a larger DOF. So if I need to
shoot something at F11 with the 35mm then I will get away with the
same result using a larger aperture with the 4/3s standard. This
gives me more light=faster shutter speeds/low ISO. So can't it be of
any advantage in this sense? Perhaps not just in Landscape
photography where I shoot at F16-22.

If you shoot landscapes at f22 then you do not take good advantage of whatever system you have.

• Sergey

 

[Jonas B]

(...)
Perhaps not just in Landscape
photography where I shoot at F16-22.

I think you should open up a bit. At f/8 and smaller openings you get wider DOF but less resolution due to diffraction. It doesn't matter for web publishing and small prints but if you want to print something large you would benefit from using a somewhat larger aperture value.

--
Jonas

 

[Stainedsilver]

Well, I wonder what the F64 club would say about this.

 

[PBasepeterb]

With all the talk about the 4/3 standard having larger DOF doesn't
anyone actually see that as a benefit? I know I do. When I shoot
with my pinhole camera DOF that is unique to those cameras and I like
the effect. For landscapes wouldn't the 4/3's standard be favorable?
I dunno, I am just musing. Anyone have any thoughts?

Thanks,

R

The ability to capture greater DOF is one of the main reasons
I chose OLY.

--
Keep your lens clean and your mind open.

http://www.pbase.com/peterb/

 

[Jonas B]

It is very good whenever you need a wide DOF. If I had been into real estate, or architecture mainly I would choose Olympus every time.

When I want a more shallow DOF and larger and creamier background pixels (CoC) the system is to its disadvantage.

Have a look at this snapshot for example:



I don't think it is more complicated than this. There are pros and cons to every system, every anything.

regards,

--
Jonas

With all the talk about the 4/3 standard having larger DOF doesn't
anyone actually see that as a benefit? I know I do. When I shoot
with my pinhole camera DOF that is unique to those cameras and I like
the effect. For landscapes wouldn't the 4/3's standard be favorable?
I dunno, I am just musing. Anyone have any thoughts?

 

[Ryan21]

I understand the principles of diffraction but it is sometimes not a choice for me, stopping down or multiple masks in PS to get a great DOF are my only alternative other than switching back to Large format stuff. I like to shoot lots of close foreground and still have a sharp background. I used to shoot LF years ago but since I switched to digital I have missed the movements. I have had decent prints at 11 x 14 shot @ F22 but that is all relative I suppose.

 

[Jonas B]

Well, I wonder what the F64 club would say about this.

They would agree.

Remember we are talking about the 4/3 system here. The diffraction is coupled to the DOF rather than to the f-value. The F64 club aficionados are probably using longer focal lengths than we do, for a given situation...

--
Jonas

 

[Bootstrap]

I like that!
Excellent use of the 30/1.4.
I bought the 24/1.8 for this very reason.
--
Troll Whisperer
Bill Turner

Recent Images:
Please do not edit my images without asking permission.
Thanks.
http://www.pbase.com/wmdt131

 

[Jonas B]

Hi,

OK, sometimes you don't have a choice. See my post as a spontan reaction for landscapes in general. There are always shooting styles and needs making for good reasons to brake the rule(s).

regards,

--
Jonas

I understand the principles of diffraction but it is sometimes not a
choice for me, stopping down or multiple masks in PS to get a great
DOF are my only alternative other than switching back to Large format
stuff. I like to shoot lots of close foreground and still have a
sharp background. I used to shoot LF years ago but since I switched
to digital I have missed the movements. I have had decent prints at
11 x 14 shot @ F22 but that is all relative I suppose.

 

[Ryan21]

and eat it too with just one system. I wish it were that way. However, I do believe that Olympus has given us an outstanding system capable of the vast majority of needs. It has for me at least.

Thanks for your input.

R

 

[S N Green]

and eat it too with just one system. I wish it were that way.
However, I do believe that Olympus has given us an outstanding system
capable of the vast majority of needs. It has for me at least.

Thanks for your input.

Sounds like you are changing subject now?

• Sergey

 

[Jonathan Demarais]

With all the talk about the 4/3 standard having larger DOF doesn't
anyone actually see that as a benefit? I know I do. When I shoot
with my pinhole camera DOF that is unique to those cameras and I like
the effect. For landscapes wouldn't the 4/3's standard be favorable?
I dunno, I am just musing. Anyone have any thoughts?

Thanks,

R

Funny thing. On of the major complaints from P&S users when transitioning to a DSLR is that the image "doesn't look sharp." The reason is that the narrower DOF makes them think nothing is sharp because they are used to everything being sharp in a scene. I've seen this reaction more than once from people.
--



'I cried because I had no E-3. Then I met a man with no E-510'

Olympus E-510, E-330, Pentax K10D, 42 lenses of various types

 

[simpy]

With all the talk about the 4/3 standard having larger DOF doesn't
anyone actually see that as a benefit? I know I do. When I shoot
with my pinhole camera DOF that is unique to those cameras and I like
the effect. For landscapes wouldn't the 4/3's standard be favorable?
I dunno, I am just musing. Anyone have any thoughts?

Contrary to what is commonly believed, 4/3 does not 'have larger DOF' than systems with larger systems. It merely restricts you in having shallow DOF.

With a larger sensor you can always close the aperture and bump up the ISO a little to get the exact same effect - at a very similar quality level. Diffraction is not an issue either, as it hits 4/3 at proportionally smaller f-numbers.

Note that this doesn't quite hold for macro shooting, where smaller formats do give more DOF. Also, 4/3 may have other strengths, but 'more DOF' is not one of them.

Simon

 

[Chris]

... cause I can always stop down if I don't want it. In any case, most people shouldn't worry about 4/3 DOF v. APS because the difference between APS-C and 4/3 is negligible if one considers the vertical field of view, and slightly less than 1 stop for the horizontal field of view. The real difference is between 35mm FF and APS/FourThirds.

 

[Ryan21]

I am just addressing Jonas B. I am still open to discussion. I want to know if the lot of you find the larger DOF advantageous and I have given my thoughts as to why it might be.

R

 

[Ryan21]

Okay now I am getting somewhere. This is what I am looking for. I was not aware of this. Anyone feel free to validate this?

Thanks

R