Reading mode: Light Dark

How many want a narrow DOF?

Go to last post
It depends.

For me, shooting macro demands more depth of field. I keep wishing there would be more DOF.

For most of my macro shots, I tend to stay anywhere from f8.0-f13.0. Going past that seldom helps the overall image. The depth of field at f13.0 using a 90mm macro lens with extention tubes and a 1.4x TC is incredibly tiny. If anyone has any suggestions to increase the depth of field without deteriorating the image quality.... I'm all ears.

However, if there was a way to double the DOF when shooting macro, I would love to use that feature. For example, the camera would automatically switch to a 1/2x 4/3rds ( a 2/3rds with half the resolution) sensor thereby effectively doubling the DOF that would be available on a standard 4/3rds sensor.... now that would be sweet.
 
Ryan21 said:
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?
Click to expand...
This is what I was talking about in my reply above mentioned real estate as an example.

When working to get everything within DOF and fighting to balance light, natural and flash for example, I see the smaller sensor as an advantage. Add the great UWA zooms from Olympus to this.

--
Jonas
 
simpy said:
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.
Click to expand...
It applies for macro in exactly the same way as it does for shooting in the street - stop the lens down, upper iso. Remember DoF does not depend on the sensor size, but on focal length, aperture, and distance. I would probably never use 35mm macro on Nikon - it would be way to close, but with longer lens it works just as well as with any other system one can come up with. I can not think of any macro shot where I would need more DoF than I get.
  • Sergey
 
Ryan21 said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is no advantage when everyone has it. It would only be an advantage if only you had it.
  • Sergey
 
simpy said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Bootstrap said:
I like that!
Click to expand...
Thank you Bill.
Bootstrap said:
Excellent use of the 30/1.4.
I bought the 24/1.8 for this very reason.
Click to expand...
Yup, that's one of the things what they are used for. I wouldn't mind even faster lenses though... My sample shows that a f/1.2 or even f/1.0 is needed. That's to my taste - and I relaize I'm representing the minority.

Cheers,

--
Jonas
 
Pascal04 said:
It depends.

For me, shooting macro demands more depth of field. I keep wishing
there would be more DOF.

For most of my macro shots, I tend to stay anywhere from f8.0-f13.0.
Going past that seldom helps the overall image. The depth of field at
f13.0 using a 90mm macro lens with extention tubes and a 1.4x TC is
incredibly tiny. If anyone has any suggestions to increase the depth
of field without deteriorating the image quality.... I'm all ears.

However, if there was a way to double the DOF when shooting macro, I
would love to use that feature. For example, the camera would
automatically switch to a 1/2x 4/3rds ( a 2/3rds with half the
resolution) sensor thereby effectively doubling the DOF that would be
available on a standard 4/3rds sensor.... now that would be sweet.
Click to expand...
The only advantage you can get for macro when shooting with 4/3rd is tighter frame when using shorter lens. Not a big deal at all. Especially when you trade it for less clean pixels to begin with. If that even mattered.
  • Sergey
 
jlabate said:
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.
Click to expand...
Use the same shutter but only upper iso. You get the same shot.
  • Sergey
 
jlabate said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, you can simply increase the ISO value. The larger sensor has more light to work with, so it can generally produce the same image quality at higher ISOs. For example, compare the E-3 at ISO400 to the Nikon D3 at ISO1600. Quite similar.

Simon
 
S N Green said:
It applies for macro in exactly the same way as it does for shooting
in the street - stop the lens down, upper iso. Remember DoF does not
depend on the sensor size, but on focal length, aperture, and
distance. I would probably never use 35mm macro on Nikon - it would
be way to close, but with longer lens it works just as well as with
any other system one can come up with. I can not think of any macro
shot where I would need more DoF than I get.
Click to expand...
My point was that the effective f-stop changes for very short focusing distances (when the magnification approaches 1:1), changing the equivalence relations.

However, I noticed I made a mistake, and in this case 4/3 actually gives LESS DOF than an equivalent FF setup (F-number times two). This follows from the 'close-up' relations at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

Simon
 
yes, but ISO value does not affect DOF at all. It may help you not to have to use a tripod but it has nothing to do with the DOF you obtain
 
S N Green said:
Remember DoF does not
depend on the sensor size, but on focal length, aperture, and
distance.
Click to expand...
If you are comparing the same final enlargement size, DOF absolutely depends on sensor size because a smaller sensor requires more enlargement, hence reducing the size of the circle of confusion required to make things appear in focus.

At the root of it, Depth of Field depends only on aperture diameter, distance to the subject, and acceptable circle of confusion (determined by sensor size and final image size).

Focal length only enters into the DOF equation because we like to use the F-stop ratios instead of actual aperture diameter.
 
I do like increased DOF. Before buying into Oly I had a superzoom and even more DOF, real or apparent.

I like it for street photo, for unexpected events and I like it for landscape. The only part where I wouldn't like it is for portrait, but one can always use the appropriate lens, and/or boost the ISO.

You can even use software to get a nice bokeh. It all depends how conventional you are. Most of the time I like foreground objects to be connected to their background.

Nice bokeh is a convention among others -people are beginning to like/adapt to ultrawide and fisheye, even for street photo, which has some elements of portrait in it, a quick one. IMHO.

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7689141@N06/
 
I want sometimes. But when I want it, I get it without any groaning and moaning....





--
From Russia with Love -
Andrey Sudbin, Offroad journalist
 
Chris said:
yes, but ISO value does not affect DOF at all. It may help you not to
have to use a tripod but it has nothing to do with the DOF you obtain
Click to expand...
In itself, of course it doesn't. However, the point is that you can increase the F-number (DOF!) and keep the shutter speed constant by increasing the ISO.
 
The reference is to Adams, Weston, et alia who shot on 8x10's, where f/64 works well.

--
Archer in Boulder

'The essence of all beautiful art, all great art, is gratitude.' -- Friedrich Nietzsche
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top