How many want a narrow DOF?

[olyflyer]

A modern-day Adams-wannabe with a 4/3 camera would have the problem
of diffraction, to be sure.

No, this person would use f/5 and get similar results - without being
limited by diffraction.

Simon

Come on, have you ever seen an Ansel Adams image in real life? It is not that simle as you try to put it. If it would be than F/8 or f/11 would be even better.
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/

 

[olyflyer]

Yes, you are correct of course, it's all proportional to the focal
length.

So, off to Hernandez.

Good luck. I read an article about excursions organised for all the Adams wanabes. I wonder if any of them understands why Adams used the format he used...
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/

 

[Redteg94]

The diffraction limits of an FF sensor with the same MP as a 4/3 sensor will be at a narrower Dof, so if you can only shoot at f8 with 4/3 without seeing diffraction, you could shoot at f16 with a full frame. You shouldn't be shooting at f16-22 if you want maximum resolution; diffraction at these apertures will significantly reduce the resolving ability of your system. This is mostly why compact cameras don't go narrower than f/8 AFIK.

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

--
-Scott
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redteg94/

 

[Redteg94]

That club was formed with medium and large format users, not 35mm or smaller. If you notice, there are few if any 35mm lenses that can stop down that narrow, and that's for a reason.

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

--
-Scott
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redteg94/

 

[simpy]

Ignoring for a moment the fact that 'infinite' DOF doesn't exist, it still doesn't change the fact that 4/3 is not 'better' in this respect than any larger format system.

First of all, you'd have to reason a whole lot better to write off
equivalence 'theory' as a 'fraud'.

in itself it isnt
but thats exactly what it is when its proported to be the only form
of comparison

It's certainly not the only method of comparison, but I dare argue that it's better than comparing at equal F-number and ISO.

But yes, if you want lots of DOF and don't care which system you get
to get there, you may as well choose a smaller format because of this
small descrepancy (assuming the quality at ISO100 is ok).

which is an averse to what you continually describe isnt it

No.

 

[simpy]

I figure that if you hit the limits on
an Oly, you're probably pushing the ragged edge with an APS sensor
camera too and should probably consider going 35mm or 6x7 etc. anyway.

I fully agree.

 

[simpy]

No, this person would use f/5 and get similar results - without being
limited by diffraction.

Simon

Come on, have you ever seen an Ansel Adams image in real life? It is
not that simle as you try to put it. If it would be than F/8 or f/11
would be even better.

Sorry, I don't get what you mean. Talking about DOF/F-stop/diffraction only, selecting f/5 would get you in the same ballpark as f/64 on 8x10, right?

Simon

 

[Redteg94]

The E-1 has a much larger pixel pitch (1/2 the MP count and same size sensor) so it's less diffraction limited than the newer 10MP 4/3s cams. That might be why you can't notice the difference as much. This is getting lots of attention in full frame forums as the new 1Ds III Canon has 21.1 MP. This is good for landscapers because of the high MP count, but the smallish pixel pitch means its much more diffraction limited than say, the 5D. It seems one has to compromise between resolution and diffraction

Pretty many of the shots taken with my retired E-1 were with f8-f10
and I had it hard to see any huge difference in print from shoths
where I used somewhat larger aperture. The difference was there, but
not so huge.

--
-Scott
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redteg94/

 

[Redteg94]

That's where 35mm's ISO speed advantage comes in. It is also 2 stops, so 35mm can have same Dof and same shutter speed as 4/3. This may cause some argument, but look at the 5D: the sensor is almost 3 years old and has at least one if not two stops of ISO over an E-3, whereas the new Nikon D3 is easily 2 stops

There is an 4/3 advantage over larger formats if you desire a long
DOF - speed. Yes, you can stop down a lens on that larger format to
get an equivalent DOF of the 4/3 but you do so at the expense of
having to use a longer shutter speed. For 4/3 vs. 35mm full frame,
the advantage is two stops of shutter speed for the 4/3 for an
equivalent DOF.

--
-Scott
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redteg94/

 

[Rriley]

Ignoring for a moment the fact that 'infinite' DOF doesn't exist, it
still doesn't change the fact that 4/3 is not 'better' in this
respect than any larger format system.

what the hell sort of response is this ?
infinity is a description used all the time to describe a focal field value
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
11mm lens, F5.6, 4/3rds
Subject distance 5 ft

Depth of field
Near limit 2.43 ft
Far limit Infinity
Total Infinite

infinite, got it now buddy ?

you want to rave about diffraction as a hard limit
this is at F22 EXIF in tact



100% crop

First of all, you'd have to reason a whole lot better to write off
equivalence 'theory' as a 'fraud'.

in itself it isnt
but thats exactly what it is when its proported to be the only form
of comparison

It's certainly not the only method of comparison, but I dare argue
that it's better than comparing at equal F-number and ISO.

and argue you do, but thats pretty much your sum contribution

But yes, if you want lots of DOF and don't care which system you get
to get there, you may as well choose a smaller format because of this
small descrepancy (assuming the quality at ISO100 is ok).

which is an averse to what you continually describe isnt it

No.

--
Riley

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous (just)

 

[Redteg94]

I don't know, considering the performance of the 12MP 1/1.7" compacts, a D3 at ISO 1600 or 2000 may produce very similar results to a 2/3" 12MP at ISO 100. Of course, we will probably never know, as that sensor size appears to be dead, at least in still cams. And high end pro video cams with 2/3" sensors now have 1080x1920 resolution, or about 2MP, so they should be quite good (I don't know, as I've never used one and my store only carries 1/3" 3CCD cams or smaller.

sorry but, my analogy between a 2/3" sensor and FF135 still holds
the iso100 2/3" is going to look better than a iso2000 FF135
of course, this is the fraud that so called 'equivalence theory'
always proported
Riley

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous (just)

--
-Scott
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redteg94/

 

[S N Green]

Riley,

I have no idea what you are trying to demonstrate with your images, other than you are completely diverting from the subject. The point Simon is making is that infinity does not change the fact that 4/3 is not 'better' in respect to deeper DoF than any larger format system. What is so hard to understand?

• Sergey

 

[S N Green]

I notice that, in these discussions about DoF, that hardly anyone
brings up the subject of 'focal plane distance'. Everyone rambles on
about fStop ad infinitum. If you're shooting landscapes with the
focus set at infinity, fStop is of no practical concern re Dof since,
at infinity focus, your DoF is huge with any camera.

Yes, somehow people do miss it. With D200/D300 f/5.6-7 usually does just

fine with 12mm lens on. Even when I focus on closer, as 2-5 meters away subjects. I made an error few times of shooting in manual mode with 12mm lens (8.5mm 4/3 equivalent) set to infinity, and I could not tell the difference whether the focus was correct from the landscape shots. At around 5.6 to 7 aperture settings. The DoF difference usually becomes exponentially noticeable at wider than f/4 apertures and with closer subjects.

• Sergey

 

[S N Green]

I am very very suspicious about f8 being some kind of "limit" when it
comes to practical use. Have you really made larger prints from f11,
say A2 and really saw the noticable degradation of the image quality
compared to shots taken at f8?

Pretty many of the shots taken with my retired E-1 were with f8-f10
and I had it hard to see any huge difference in print from shoths
where I used somewhat larger aperture. The difference was there, but
not so huge.

It depends on how you define huge. I would say it is often big enough to knock off resolution advantage, which ultimately tells me that certain aperture in particular light should not have been used.

Of course I was not pixel-peeping, but maybe ...

Then let us do it! How about we see few samples so we can at least have the same basis for comparison? Could you post some?

• Sergey

 

[S N Green]

...

This in spite of the trolls and others here who keep rabbiting on
about "paper-thin" DoF being the most desirable thing in the world!!

..

Try not to use someone else's words but your own brain instead. There is no 'paper-thin DoF', and no-one is claiming shallow DoF is the most (and the only) desirable thing on earth. What many are saying is that larger sensors will generally provide more control with/and greater artistic flexibility to the shooter than the cameras that have smaller sensors in them. You may or may not want shallow DoF for what you do (if you do anything with it at all), but deep DoF can easily be obtained by stopping the lens down and bumping the ISO (if necessary). With any system and whenever you need it. Same can not be said about shallow DoF. You have no advantage by claiming you have something while everyone else has this very same 'something' as well.

• Sergey

 

[S N Green]

A very simple question, Sergey.

Does Nikon pay you to troll on this forum? Or do you just do it as a
very time-consuming pastime, spreading FUD and b/s as much as you can?

.. time-consuming pastime, spreading FUD.. ?

You mean like FUD where E510 outclasses a 5D:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=26759020

and how you, personally, did better at a wedding with his E510 than another with a 5D and 1DsII!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=26738974

May I ask we all see some of those pics?

• Sergey

 

[simpy]

Ignoring for a moment the fact that 'infinite' DOF doesn't exist, it
still doesn't change the fact that 4/3 is not 'better' in this
respect than any larger format system.

what the hell sort of response is this ?

Sorry, made a mistake in writing down my thoughts in the first part of the sentence. I was thinking about hyperfocal distances and how more DOF can always be used to draw the near limit closer, even when the far limit is at infinity. My fault.

Still doesn't change my point that 4/3 is not necessarily 'better' for large DOF. [Not worse either, though]

infinite, got it now buddy ?

• snip -

and argue you do, but thats pretty much your sum contribution

There doesn't seem to be any sense in continuing this 'conversation'. I think I have been clear, you apparently think so too, and you are - again - starting to get rude.

Simon

 

[Franka T.L.]

is what I need , as for landscape, I would assume the OP means shoots oriented towards Wide Angle Capture, At these short focal length, and needing to keep overall frame performance, one really need to shoot at f8.0 as the old saying goes ( or even slower in some case ) so the DOF between 4/3, APS-C and even FF is less so exaggerated.

Its at standard Lens and short tele coverage when this can be a issue, and its not just shallow DOF, but control of the DOF and placing it where one wants it. The 4/3's DOF character can be a curse or a blessing depending on ones need and application.

Similarly when one get to real tele and long tele coverage, the DOF are all btu minimal no matter the format anyway ( especially if you shoot cloose up , in Tele's term )

--

• Franka -

 

[Rriley]

Ignoring for a moment the fact that 'infinite' DOF doesn't exist, it
still doesn't change the fact that 4/3 is not 'better' in this
respect than any larger format system.

what the hell sort of response is this ?

Sorry, made a mistake in writing down my thoughts in the first part
of the sentence. I was thinking about hyperfocal distances and how
more DOF can always be used to draw the near limit closer, even when
the far limit is at infinity. My fault.

Still doesn't change my point that 4/3 is not necessarily 'better'
for large DOF. [Not worse either, though]

infinite, got it now buddy ?

• snip -

and argue you do, but thats pretty much your sum contribution

There doesn't seem to be any sense in continuing this 'conversation'.
I think I have been clear, you apparently think so too, and you are -
again - starting to get rude.

get a grip simon
you said " Ignoring for a moment the fact that 'infinite' DOF doesn't exist"
when that isnt anything like the entirely conventional matter i described
which was

you cant get more DoF than infinity

given that

what the hell sort of response is this ?

is a fair sort of question, perhaps too fair

4/3rds has no issue with deep dof, as its a system better disposed to shooting at or near wide open

that is an advantage
as deeper dof photography is the more common to shallow dof
it is a capital advantage

--
Riley

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous (just)

 

[S N Green]

...
4/3rds has no issue with deep dof, as its a system better disposed to
shooting at or near wide open

that is an advantage
as deeper dof photography is the more common to shallow dof
it is a capital advantage

How many times will you be repeating this? You can not claim an advantage for something everyone else has !

• Sergey