Reading mode: Light Dark

How many want a narrow DOF?

Go to last post
Ryan21 said:
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

Depends on the application, for landscape,some types of macro its an advantage. For portraiture and some types of reportage its a disadvantage.
Click to expand...
 
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.
Click to expand...
this is what confuses folks

you cannot simultaneously argue that 4/3rds doesnt have more dof and not less dof at the same time

operationally there is this

at the same effective aperture common to all systems irrespective of dof equivalence has more dof than larger sensors.

so if you wanted to compare the max dof of two systems at the same shutter speed, there is eventually a situation where smaller sensor iterations are advantaged

to demonstrate in a more extreme example with a 2/3" sensor or 135FF sensor at 28mm

for a 2/3" sensor, 7mm (28mmEFL) F2.8
the near limit is 1.16m and far is infinity

where for FF135
near limit is 1.14m and far is infinity,
but FF requires an aperture of F12.7 to do this

so contrary to the common view, the FF camera needs to stop down about 4 & 1/3 stops to get to the same hyperfocal distance. To maintain the same shutter speed from say the 2/3" 1/30th sec at iso100, FF needs to go up to about iso2000.

id like to meet the troll that claims 5D at iso2000 exceeds to 2/3" at iso100. Just imagine a modern 2/3" sensor (its not too far from the Fuji Super CCD) at iso400/800, the FF would be toast.

FF is good for a lot of photography, but it isnt good for everything in every circumstance.
--
Riley

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous (just)
 
not to belabor the point, but keeping the same shutter speed constant is really irrelevant ? This is not about achieving correct exposure.

The implied conditions for any meaningful comparison between APS and 4/3 are that the subject distance is the same, that the field of view of the image is the same (either horizontally or vertically, since exactly the same is not possible due to the different aspect ratios), and that the DOF is the same. Only if the end result is obtained is essentially the same, a comparison between the aperture values makes any sense. Anything else is comparing apples and oranges.

Under these conditions, if the horizontal field of view is the same, a four-third user has to have his (appropriate lens) approximately 2/3 - 1 stop more open than the APS-C user. If the vertical field of view is the same, the 4/3 user needs less than 1/3 of a stop extra w.r.t. the APS-C user to achieve the essentially same result.
 
Ryan21 said:
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
Click to expand...
IMO, the Oly is not a good camera for landscape. In an ideal world the larger the better. I see Olympus as a good compromise in regard to weight, price and performance.

If I was a pro landscape photographer making a huge pile of money I would buy the largest digital camera possible to get huge DOF and a lot of detail. I would join the f/64 club.

If I was a pro studio portrait photographer making a huge pile of money I would buy the largest digital camera possible. I would join the hair thin DOF club.

For normal journalism and other 'normal' use I think Olympus is ideal, but every system has it's limits and the limit is not in the image sensor size for those situations except the first two.
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/
 
Chris said:
not to belabor the point, but keeping the same shutter speed constant
is really irrelevant ? This is not about achieving correct exposure.
Click to expand...
it was never my idea, but equivalence was pushed down our throats here to demonstrate some other issue where 4/3rds is said to be deficient

equivalence suggests that the best way to compare systems is to make an exposure that gives the same image at the same shutter speed, that is, the same dof. Representative equal values would then be
FF @ iso 1600 + 50mm @ f/8
APS-C @ iso 625 + 31mm @ f/5
4/3rd @ iso 400 + 25mm @ f/4
and these values should have about the same s/n
Member said:
The implied conditions for any meaningful comparison between APS and
4/3 are that the subject distance is the same, that the field of view
of the image is the same (either horizontally or vertically, since
exactly the same is not possible due to the different aspect ratios),
and that the DOF is the same. Only if the end result is obtained is
essentially the same, a comparison between the aperture values makes
any sense. Anything else is comparing apples and oranges.
Click to expand...
if i hear what you are saying, that operationally things are often quite different, is something that i take no issue with, its the notorious F2=F2=F2.
Member said:
Under these conditions, if the horizontal field of view is the same,
a four-third user has to have his (appropriate lens) approximately
2/3 - 1 stop more open than the APS-C user. If the vertical field of
view is the same, the 4/3 user needs less than 1/3 of a stop extra
w.r.t. the APS-C user to achieve the essentially same result.
Click to expand...
heres something else to think about

in sensor format iterations like 4x3 and 3x2, areas and crop factors do not directly equate. So the common 2 stops below FF we use is actually somewhat less. Incrementally then this difference should show with Nikon 1.52x and canon 1.62x APSC as well.
--
Riley

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous (just)
 
olyflyer said:
Ryan21 said:
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
Click to expand...
IMO, the Oly is not a good camera for landscape. In an ideal world
the larger the better. I see Olympus as a good compromise in regard
to weight, price and performance.

If I was a pro landscape photographer making a huge pile of money I
would buy the largest digital camera possible to get huge DOF and a
lot of detail. I would join the f/64 club.
Click to expand...
actually the current trendy bs is too make giant panoramics comprised of perhaps hundreds of images and stitched together. There is a foveon photographer doing this and it really is incredible resolution
olyflyer said:
If I was a pro studio portrait photographer making a huge pile of
money I would buy the largest digital camera possible. I would join
the hair thin DOF club.

For normal journalism and other 'normal' use I think Olympus is
ideal, but every system has it's limits and the limit is not in the
image sensor size for those situations except the first two.
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/
Click to expand...
--
Riley

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous (just)
 
This is something I have been looking into since '04. I just don't have the computer speed to do it. My little Macbook crashes with composites larger than 7 images. At it's limits I suppose. I do like the idea however!

R
 
Rriley said:
this is what confuses folks
you cannot simultaneously argue that 4/3rds doesnt have more dof and
not less dof at the same time

operationally there is this
at the same effective aperture common to all systems irrespective of
dof equivalence has more dof than larger sensors.

so if you wanted to compare the max dof of two systems at the same
shutter speed, there is eventually a situation where smaller sensor
iterations are advantaged

to demonstrate in a more extreme example with a 2/3" sensor or 135FF
sensor at 28mm

for a 2/3" sensor, 7mm (28mmEFL) F2.8
the near limit is 1.16m and far is infinity

where for FF135
near limit is 1.14m and far is infinity,
but FF requires an aperture of F12.7 to do this

so contrary to the common view, the FF camera needs to stop down
about 4 & 1/3 stops to get to the same hyperfocal distance. To
maintain the same shutter speed from say the 2/3" 1/30th sec at
iso100, FF needs to go up to about iso2000.

id like to meet the troll that claims 5D at iso2000 exceeds to 2/3"
at iso100. Just imagine a modern 2/3" sensor (its not too far from
the Fuji Super CCD) at iso400/800, the FF would be toast.
..
Click to expand...
Make it simple Riley, there is about 4 stops difference between 2/3" and FF formats, which brings f/2.8 roughly equivalent to f/11 on FF format (not f/12.7), and iso 100 to somewhere in a range of iso 1600 (not iso 2000). Comparing to these hypothetical settings between 5D and my beloved C-8080 I would say they are about equal. So your example proves nothing.
  • Sergey
 
Riley,
Rriley said:
it was never my idea, but equivalence was pushed down our throats
here to demonstrate some other issue where 4/3rds is said to be
deficient
Click to expand...
Well, you DO need a wider aperture with 4/3 than APS, but the difference is not in all cases large. There's much less to it than most make it out too be.
Rriley said:
equivalence suggests that the best way to compare systems is to make
an exposure that gives the same image at the same shutter speed, that
is, the same dof.
Click to expand...
Correct. But not just DOF, also the same field of view.

Representative equal values would then be
Rriley said:
FF @ iso 1600 + 50mm @ f/8
APS-C @ iso 625 + 31mm @ f/5
4/3rd @ iso 400 + 25mm @ f/4
and these values should have about the same s/n
Click to expand...
forget about the ISO values, they are really not DOF relevant! Now as for the focal lengths that you compute, these are based on the crop factors 2 for 4/3 and 1.6 for Canon APS. These crop values are based on the image diagonal. Because the FF and APS have the same aspect ratio that's ok there. But 4/3 has a different aspect ratio, which means that the crop factor is NOT to achieve either the same horizontal or vertical field of view. comparing the sensor size. If you want to get the same vertical field of view like FF, then the 4/3 crop factor is 1.85. If you want to get the same horizontal field of view, then the crop factor is 2.08. Therefore, it's important which dimensions you consider.
Rriley said:
Rriley said:
The implied conditions for any meaningful comparison between APS and
4/3 are that the subject distance is the same, that the field of view
of the image is the same (either horizontally or vertically, since
exactly the same is not possible due to the different aspect ratios),
and that the DOF is the same. Only if the end result is obtained is
essentially the same, a comparison between the aperture values makes
any sense. Anything else is comparing apples and oranges.
Click to expand...
if i hear what you are saying, that operationally things are often
quite different, is something that i take no issue with, its the
notorious F2=F2=F2.
Click to expand...
what this means is: if the vertical field of view is the same as FF, you need to use a crop of 1.85, i.e. instead of 50mm, you need a 50/1.85=27mm lens. For the same horizontal field of view, you need a 24mm lens, i.e. not the same because of the aspect ratio.
Rriley said:
Rriley said:
Under these conditions, if the horizontal field of view is the same,
a four-third user has to have his (appropriate lens) approximately
2/3 - 1 stop more open than the APS-C user. If the vertical field of
view is the same, the 4/3 user needs less than 1/3 of a stop extra
w.r.t. the APS-C user to achieve the essentially same result.
Click to expand...
heres something else to think about
in sensor format iterations like 4x3 and 3x2, areas and crop factors
do not directly equate. So the common 2 stops below FF we use is
actually somewhat less. Incrementally then this difference should
show with Nikon 1.52x and canon 1.62x APSC as well.
Click to expand...
Precisely. For this reason there's essentially no differnce between APS and 4/3 for the same vertical field of view but about 2/3 of a stop for the same horizontal field of view.

Check out this also http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
 
Jonathan Demarais said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think it's more to do with the heavy in-camera sharpening of most P&S cameras. My wife's 3Meg Fuji P&S produces far sharper images out of the camera than My E3 with no in camera sharpening.

Jim Ford
 
S N Green said:
Make it simple Riley, there is about 4 stops difference between 2/3"
and FF formats, which brings f/2.8 roughly equivalent to f/11 on FF
format (not f/12.7), and iso 100 to somewhere in a range of iso 1600
(not iso 2000). Comparing to these hypothetical settings between 5D
and my beloved C-8080 I would say they are about equal. So your
example proves nothing.
Click to expand...
heres a typical troll response that turns iso 2000 into iso 1600 in a heartbeat
where actually, calculated dof establishes that my calcs are correct

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
shutter speeds are the same in both cases

subject distance 2.5M
angle of view 28mm EFL
FF near limit 1.14M, F12.7

2/3" sensor
subject distance 2.5M
angle of view 28mm EFL (7mm)
2/3" near limit 1.16M, F=2.8

in stops, 2.8-4-5.6-8-11-12.7, 4-1/3 stops
therefore in iso, 100-200-400-800-1600-2000 4-1/3 stops

therefore in equivalence, 2/3" F2.8 iso100 = FF135 F12.7 iso2000

--
Riley

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous (just)
 
Ryan21 said:
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?
Click to expand...
I think there's too much talk about the lack of shallow DoF. I can easily do portrait shots using Olympus 4:3rds lenses where one eye is in focus and the other isn't. That to me is too shallow unless you're into novelty shots. 4:3rds can also do very deep DoF too. I really don't understand why people complain about the lack of DoF with 4:3rds systems. They may as well shoot with Lensbabies if that's the look they're into :).
 
It's a pretty rare situation when I'm looking for less DOF than is available with my f2.8 lenses, but there are plenty of times in macro, landscape, architecture and still life when I would love to have more than I can get by stopping down.

The purists may not approve, but when I do need a background farther out of focus Photoshop makes it a piece of cake. On the other hand, when I need more DOF I'm pretty much stuck.

--
JR

http://www.fotolocus.com
 
Paul Shields said:
Ryan21 said:
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?
Click to expand...
I think there's too much talk about the lack of shallow DoF. I can
easily do portrait shots using Olympus 4:3rds lenses where one eye is
in focus and the other isn't. That to me is too shallow unless you're
into novelty shots. 4:3rds can also do very deep DoF too. I really
don't understand why people complain about the lack of DoF with
4:3rds systems. They may as well shoot with Lensbabies if that's the
look they're into :).
Click to expand...
well its a troll target thread Paul, thats what is about

actually a short macro ring (remember we had 7mm OM macro rings) should do the same thing

--
Riley

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous (just)
 
Rriley said:
Chris said:
not to belabor the point, but keeping the same shutter speed constant
is really irrelevant ? This is not about achieving correct exposure.
Click to expand...
it was never my idea, but equivalence was pushed down our throats
here to demonstrate some other issue where 4/3rds is said to be
deficient
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it was pushed down anyone's throats, but there are at least one or two people who spout it as gospel on here when the 'theory' is fundamentally flawed. A major flaw is that equivalence will only make sense (and even then it's debatable) if you are comparing similar sensor technology.

I'm sure the mama batphone is now ringing so I'll sign off and await international rescue to explain it a bit more :).
 
Paul Shields said:
Rriley said:
Chris said:
not to belabor the point, but keeping the same shutter speed constant
is really irrelevant ? This is not about achieving correct exposure.
Click to expand...
it was never my idea, but equivalence was pushed down our throats
here to demonstrate some other issue where 4/3rds is said to be
deficient
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it was pushed down anyone's throats,
Click to expand...
well there were repeated consecutive threads on this here which i was one who fought against. having relented to the common ground, i know when to dish it out
..............and who to...
Paul Shields said:
but there are at
least one or two people who spout it as gospel on here when the
'theory' is fundamentally flawed. A major flaw is that equivalence
will only make sense (and even then it's debatable) if you are
comparing similar sensor technology.
Click to expand...
yes
Paul Shields said:
I'm sure the mama batphone is now ringing so I'll sign off and await
international rescue to explain it a bit more :).
Click to expand...
indeedy ! (that would be the 4/3rds equivalence alarm has gone situation red)

word is he got banned, not sure if its true but he hasnt been around for a few days
--
Riley

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous (just)
 
Rriley said:
heres a typical troll response that turns iso 2000 into iso 1600 in a
heartbeat
where actually, calculated dof establishes that my calcs are correct

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
shutter speeds are the same in both cases

subject distance 2.5M
angle of view 28mm EFL
FF near limit 1.14M, F12.7

2/3" sensor
subject distance 2.5M
angle of view 28mm EFL (7mm)
2/3" near limit 1.16M, F=2.8

in stops, 2.8-4-5.6-8-11-12.7, 4-1/3 stops
therefore in iso, 100-200-400-800-1600-2000 4-1/3 stops

therefore in equivalence, 2/3" F2.8 iso100 = FF135 F12.7 iso2000

--
Riley

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous (just)
Click to expand...
Riley, you can not compare angle of view between two different formats and then claim it somehow effects DoF calculations down to infinity. Numbers often get rounded, as aperture stops for example, and by now most people learned to live with it as is. Again, make it simple, there is about 4 stops difference between two sensors you took as an example. Put things in equivalnce and you get the same almost identical results, as expected.
  • Sergey
 
Rriley said:
olyflyer said:
If I was a pro landscape photographer making a huge pile of money I
would buy the largest digital camera possible to get huge DOF and a
lot of detail. I would join the f/64 club.
Click to expand...
actually the current trendy bs is too make giant panoramics comprised
of perhaps hundreds of images and stitched together. There is a
foveon photographer doing this and it really is incredible resolution
Click to expand...
Yes, I know that is doable, but Imagine the work, than imagine how it would feel if you could just press the button and you would get several times the Hassy resolution...

I call stitching a workaround, not a solution. Stitching is possible with any camera.
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/
 
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