DOF

joe mama · Jun 4, 2008

Timmi said:
The Diffraction is limited theoretical at F8. Just to quote Wrotniak
here.
"Diffraction with the 50mmF2 and 8MP starts at F12 and is really
visible from F16 on." Basically the diffraction starts a little later
in F Terms(goes for every system)

But thats a really minor point....

Whatever f-ratio 4/3 is diffraction limited at, FF is diffraction limited at twice that f-ratio for the same total image detail :

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#diffraction

Timmi said:
Timmi said:

and also in the Definition of Equivalence here:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#equivalence

"The following settings will be equivalent (rounded to the nearest
1/3 of a stop):

1) 5D at 80mm, f/8, 1/200, ISO 400
2) D300 at 53mm, f/5, 1/200, ISO 160
3) 40D at 50mm, f/5, 1/200, ISO 160
4) E3 at 40mm, f/4, 1/200, ISO 100"

Click to expand...

Timmi said:
The point is that you are using ISO 200. This makes the whole thing
looks simple and gives an easy homerun. Do the the same thing with
IS0800/ISO 1600 and lets say F5 for the Crop side. The whole point
will change.

I'm afraid I still don't understand. None of the above examples use ISO 200. Furthermore, the ISOs are chosen to give the same shutter speed at the same DOF for the same perspective and AOV.

Timmi said:
Timmi said:

Again, I'm not seeing it. As shutter speed is a fundamental in the
definition of equivalence:

Click to expand...

Timmi said:
Exactly, but Shutter speed can be a or the main selling point like
DOF. So it has to be counted in the same way as DOF and not less.

It is! All the conditions of equivalence:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#equivalence

1) Same perspective (subject-camera distance)
2) Same FOV (field of view / framing)
3) Same DOF (depth of field) / aperture (aperture = focal length / f-ratio)
4) Same shutter speed
5) Same output size (same number of pixels / display size)

are equally important.

Timmi said:
I'm not saying your are ignoring the fact. You are just keeping the
bad side for 35mmFF and the good side of Crop regarding shutterspeed
and DOF as a minor
side, which in my point of view isn't. It can be a deciding point.

There are no "good" or "bad" sides to shutter speed. Shutter speed is shutter speed. Now, for conditions of "partial equivalence", FF will have an advantage:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#partial

Timmi said:
One other thing: You are quoting as well " ...buying a 35mmFF body ..
lets say a D3 and using a slow F5.6 lens (to be equivalent) ...". No
one who would be seriously considering a ProBody ( or 35mm body )like
the D3 would buy those aweful lenses. This would be a waste of money.
The the Equivalence/Price/Size/Weight Effect is in practical and
realistic terms even worse then your example.

Oh but they would. For example, I would definitely get a 5D + 135 / 2L over a 40D + 85 / 1.2L. I would definitely get a 5D + 70-200 / 4L IS over an E420 + 35-100 / 2.

Usually, of course, people do not get larger sensor systems to take equivalent images -- they get a larger sensor system to get images that smaller sensor systems cannot get, or higher IQ. But there are definitely times that larger sensor systems with smaller and lighter glass is a preferred option.

Just as an E420 + 14-42 / 3.5-5.6 + 40-150 / 4-5.6 has no answer in FF, no other format has an answer for a 5D + 28 / 1.8 + 50 / 1.4 + 100 / 2, which is a very light weight ultra high IQ light sucking system. You don't need a 24 / 1.4L, 35 / 1.4L, 50 / 1.2L, 85 / 1.2L, 135 / 2L, 24-70 / 2.8L, 70-200 / 2.8L IS, etc., etc. to make a FF system the preferred option.

Timmi said:
But as I said before, everything else is fine. No question about that.

I still don't understand what parts you don't agree with.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

joe mama · Jun 4, 2008

Razor503 said:
Razor503 said:

But 4/3 doesn't have a larger DOF.

Click to expand...

Razor503 said:
Huh? According to every word that spilleth out of the mouths of other
DSLR owners, the 4/3rds sensor, because of its size, most definitely
has an advantage vis-à-vis DOF. You cannot have it both ways.

"Spilleth out of the mouth" is a great way to characterize your posts:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28144452

"4/3rds sensors have little if any difffraction in that 4/3rds sensors are full frame in their own right"

and

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28051768

"If imaging was a religion, we 4/3rds folks would be 'pure' (the one and only 100% digital imaging system) and the rest of you?"

You are a troll, and an uneducated and fanatical one at that. Worse, you've yet to post any image save this one:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28166794

What possible interest could I have in your thoughts on photography?

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

spt_gb · Jun 4, 2008

Razor503 said:
joe mama said:

Razor503 said:

One of reasons that I went with 4/3 is the larger DoF.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Razor503 said:

But 4/3 doesn't have a larger DOF.

Click to expand...

Huh? According to every word that spilleth out of the mouths of other
DSLR owners, the 4/3rds sensor, because of its size, most definitely
has an advantage vis-à-vis DOF. You cannot have it both ways.

At equivalent focal lengths the larger sensor can achieve the same deep DoF by stopping down more (diffraction effects cut in later, plus better high ISO performance allows you to achieve the same shutter speeds if required).

What 4/3rds can't do is go the other way. You can't manage the same or less DoF when you are looking for narrow DoF effects. The bigger the sensor, the bigger the range of usable f stops from a given speed of lens.
...

Razor503 said:
? ?? So are you saying, empirically, that 4/3rds actually does have
some advantages?

Patently it does, but they're mostly not the ones you're thinking of.

Timmi · Jun 4, 2008

joe mama said:
joe mama said:

The Diffraction is limited theoretical at F8. Just to quote Wrotniak
here.
"Diffraction with the 50mmF2 and 8MP starts at F12 and is really
visible from F16 on." Basically the diffraction starts a little later
in F Terms(goes for every system)

But thats a really minor point....

Click to expand...

Whatever f-ratio 4/3 is diffraction limited at, FF is diffraction
limited at twice that f-ratio for the same total image detail :

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#diffraction

It isn't. What you are saying is the simplified version. I don't have the right physical formula and explanation at hand now. I need to search the german dslr-forum for this.

joe mama said:
joe mama said:

joe mama said:

and also in the Definition of Equivalence here:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#equivalence

"The following settings will be equivalent (rounded to the nearest
1/3 of a stop):

1) 5D at 80mm, f/8, 1/200, ISO 400
2) D300 at 53mm, f/5, 1/200, ISO 160
3) 40D at 50mm, f/5, 1/200, ISO 160
4) E3 at 40mm, f/4, 1/200, ISO 100"

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

joe mama said:

The point is that you are using ISO 200. This makes the whole thing
looks simple and gives an easy homerun. Do the the same thing with
IS0800/ISO 1600 and lets say F5 for the Crop side. The whole point
will change.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid I still don't understand. None of the above examples use
ISO 200. Furthermore, the ISOs are chosen to give the same shutter
speed at the same DOF for the same perspective and AOV.

Ok, A D3 with F10 needs which ISO to be equivalent with an E3 with F5 at ISO 800? Or an E3 with ISO1600 and F5.

Its just a play with numbers. If some with less experience and knowledge reads your text he could get under false impressions.

Nothing Else.

joe mama said:
joe mama said:

joe mama said:

Again, I'm not seeing it. As shutter speed is a fundamental in the
definition of equivalence:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

joe mama said:

Exactly, but Shutter speed can be a or the main selling point like
DOF. So it has to be counted in the same way as DOF and not less.

Click to expand...

It is! All the conditions of equivalence:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#equivalence

1) Same perspective (subject-camera distance)
2) Same FOV (field of view / framing)
3) Same DOF (depth of field) / aperture (aperture = focal length /
f-ratio)
4) Same shutter speed
5) Same output size (same number of pixels / display size)

are equally important.

Yes. It is stated there. But you've got a lot of DOF discussion at the end (last third) which suggest that DOF is the only point that counts.

Again: It could be easily missread.

joe mama said:
joe mama said:

I'm not saying your are ignoring the fact. You are just keeping the
bad side for 35mmFF and the good side of Crop regarding shutterspeed
and DOF as a minor
side, which in my point of view isn't. It can be a deciding point.

Click to expand...

There are no "good" or "bad" sides to shutter speed. Shutter speed
is shutter speed. Now, for conditions of "partial equivalence", FF
will have an advantage:

There is. It called sensor technology and size (plus comparison with focal length if you want to). Just imaging a 4/3 sensor could get 1600 as good as a D300. 600m at F5 and ISO 1600 is a advantage which only can be reached with 35mmFF with a hell lot more of Money/Size/Weight in practical terms.

Again: Theoretically its easy and simple, practically not that simple at all.

And this issue is also part of your comparison part

joe mama said:
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#partial

joe mama said:

One other thing: You are quoting as well " ...buying a 35mmFF body ..
lets say a D3 and using a slow F5.6 lens (to be equivalent) ...". No
one who would be seriously considering a ProBody ( or 35mm body )like
the D3 would buy those aweful lenses. This would be a waste of money.
The the Equivalence/Price/Size/Weight Effect is in practical and
realistic terms even worse then your example.

Click to expand...

Oh but they would. For example, I would definitely get a 5D + 135 /
2L over a 40D + 85 / 1.2L. I would definitely get a 5D + 70-200 / 4L
IS over an E420 + 35-100 / 2.

Yes only a 5D. But then that is not a Pro-Grade Body. If you want ProGrade there is only a D3 or 1Dx. And of course F2 gives you the same DOF as F4 at 35mm. But what about this:

All Care is for is shutter speed and optical performace. The difference in DOF between 4/3 and other Crop and 35mmFF for the type of photography is irrelevant?.

Question: Is your point still the same?

Answer: No its isn't. Even if you have to pump up the ISO there is still the weight/size and money issue.

joe mama said:
Usually, of course, people do not get larger sensor systems to take
equivalent images -- they get a larger sensor system to get images
that smaller sensor systems cannot get, or higher IQ. But there are
definitely times that larger sensor systems with smaller and
lighter glass is a preferred option.

Exactly. What about a D3 and lets say a 500mm F4. Its just a different viewpoint. And both viewpoints have to be considered equally. Not just one sided regarding 5D and fast primes or short tele

joe mama said:
Just as an E420 + 14-42 / 3.5-5.6 + 40-150 / 4-5.6 has no answer in
FF, no other format has an answer for a 5D + 28 / 1.8 + 50 / 1.4 +
100 / 2, which is a very light weight ultra high IQ light sucking
system. You don't need a 24 / 1.4L, 35 / 1.4L, 50 / 1.2L, 85 /
1.2L, 135 / 2L, 24-70 / 2.8L, 70-200 / 2.8L IS, etc., etc. to make a
FF system the preferred option.

Of course not, but if I'm buying a 5D(which I won't, more likely a D3 if I would win in lottery) I will never ever buy a F5,6. F4 is minimum requirements (beside 400mm or longer)

joe mama said:
joe mama said:

But as I said before, everything else is fine. No question about that.

Click to expand...

I still don't understand what parts you don't agree with.

--
--joe

Hopefully you now get the point...

B

--
iThink, therefore iMac

Redteg94 · Jun 4, 2008

Razor503 said:
Jogger said:

Jeff Charles said:

4. In addition to lower cost and system weight, Olympus FT cameras
have other qualities that appeal to people: weather sealing, in-body
IS, the lenses, dust removal, articulating LV LCD, etc.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Spec out an E3 + 35-100 in size and weight.. and you will see there

Razor503 said:

is no savings in weight or costs compared to a 5D + 70-200 F4.

Click to expand...

5D costs $2500, E3 $1800: favor: E3
In addition, the E3 is a full blown pro DSLR.
35-100 Vs 70-200: favor 70-200, though it is is two stops slower and
is not > weatherproof as is the 35-100, though a pro would find the
pro specs of the > E3, to include the 115% superbright E3 viewfinder
and weatherproofing more desireable.
Addditionally, total "costs" become relative to the intended use of
both "kits".

First of all, the 5D costs about $2k, secondly, no one would call the E3 a "full blown" pro DSLR (any more than a D300 or 5D or 40D is pro). It is a prosumer DSLR.

Secondly, the 70-200 is just as weathersealed as a 35-100 is. It is two stops slower, but an E3 is two stops slower than a 5D.

The E3 viewfinder is only super-bright to people who've only used 4/3 equipment. Look through a D3, 1D or 1Ds next time you can and you'll see what I mean. Also, you can't see 115% of an image; as far as I know, one can only see 100% of something

Razor503 said:
Razor503 said:

It
will probably be cheaper to purchase the 5Dmk2 + 70-200 F4 as well
(given the price for the 35-100).

Click to expand...

To a pro, the price of the 35-100 is insignificant in that we pros
are and do depreciate (amortize) our pro purchases. At the end of
amortization, my 35-100 will end up costing me Zip-zilch-nada.
But to a "Joe Sixpack", perhaps the cost of a 35-100 might hurt: to a
pro, it's merely the cost of doing business.

The same amortization happens to users of all systems. The fact that the 70-200/4 is half the price just helps when trying to make profit.

Razor503 said:
Razor503 said:

E3 + 14-35 + battery grip is heavier than a D3 + 24-70.. the Oly
14-35 is also much more expensive for some reason

Click to expand...

The Olympus 14-35 (28-70 EFL) f/2 is one stop faster than the
"normal" 28-70 f/2.8 "pro" lens, the one stop accounting for some of
the difference, its weathersealing another.
The E3 battery grip is intergral.

Razor503 said:

and is not as wide.

Click to expand...

?
14-35mm on 4/3s is not as wide, nor as fast as a 24-70 on FF.
E3: pro, weathersealed body. D3?

Do you know what a D3 is?

Razor503 said:
Razor503 said:

The Oly 7-14 F4 is about the same size and weight as the 14-24 F2.8
despite being a slower lens. It was also $2600 when first launched.

Click to expand...

? ?? You keep making such transparent invidious comparisons but to
what end?

It seems obvious

Razor503 said:
Razor503 said:

E3 is about the same size and weight as D300.. why? makes no sense.

Click to expand...

E3= Full blown, fully weathersealed body for one; certainly that
makes "sense"?

Again I'm not sure what "full blown" means in this context, but the D300 is the E3's main competitor and is similarly priced and weighs the same. The D300 also has more resolution, less noise, better AF and more FPS and buffer. The same applies when comparing to a 40D.

Razor503 said:
Razor503 said:

The only weight and price difference you will see is in the entry
level body and lens lines; even then things are marginal at best and
given lack of consumer demand, ppl just dont care.

Click to expand...

"ppl" like yourself?
You go from denigrating the E3 pro body to gratuitously bashing
Olympus E4xx & E5xx two-lens kits: to what end?
You do know Olympus E4xx and E5xx bodies and lens kits are the least
expensive DSLR+ two-lens kit out there: right? You do know that-right?
That they are $200-$300 ~~less~~ than any comparable introductory two
lens kits;
wait: no one else except Olympus offers under $800 ~~two-lens~~ kits:
what was I thinking of?

This is true. The advantage of 4/3 seems to be good quality entry-level kit at a small discount compared to the competition. As soon as you step up to mid-level and Pro models (if Oly ever makes a Pro body) Those price and size advantages disappear.

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

Timmi · Jun 4, 2008

Woohhh?

A 5D and a 40D has the same class of Body as a D300 or E3? I think you need to read the design of such a Body again.

Just a hind. Its not about AF, FPS, Noise or Resolution!!

And as for your oth point: Olympus is only good at entryl level lenses? Ever used a 12-60 and 50-200 High Grade lens? If not, you need to.

B
--
iThink, therefore iMac

joe mama · Jun 4, 2008

Timmi said:
Timmi said:

Whatever f-ratio 4/3 is diffraction limited at, FF is diffraction
limited at twice that f-ratio for the same total image detail :

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#diffraction

Click to expand...

Timmi said:
It isn't. What you are saying is the simplified version. I don't have
the right physical formula and explanation at hand now. I need to
search the german dslr-forum for this.

But it is. You can see references here:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#articles

But what makes my essay's treatment on the subject unique to other treatments, is that it accounts for the effects of diffraction on images with the same output size and same level of detail. Other treatments of diffraction only deal with it at the pixel level, which is only relevant for different output sizes or different level of detail.

Timmi said:
Timmi said:

I'm afraid I still don't understand. None of the above examples use
ISO 200. Furthermore, the ISOs are chosen to give the same shutter
speed at the same DOF for the same perspective and AOV.

Click to expand...

Timmi said:
Ok, A D3 with F10 needs which ISO to be equivalent with an E3 with F5
at ISO 800? Or an E3 with ISO1600 and F5.

Simple: two stops higher f-ratio for the same DOF, two stops higher ISO for the same shutter speed. Thus, an E3 at f/5 ISO 1600 is equivalent to a D3 at f/10 ISO 6400 for the same perspective and AOV.

Timmi said:
Its just a play with numbers. If some with less experience and
knowledge reads your text he could get under false impressions.

Nothing Else.

That's because they don't read the essay. The less knowledge you have, the more you have to learn. So many think it can be explained in a sentence or two. For example, your question above was directly answered in the essay:

"To create equivalent images on systems with different formats, we first compute the FM ("focal multiplier", often called the "crop factor"), which is the ratio of the diagonals of the larger sensor to the smaller sensor of the systems we are comparing (or, alternatively, the ratio of the lengths or widths to get the same FOV, instead of same AOV, due to differing aspect rations, such as 4:3 and 3:2). We then multiply the FL and f-ratio of the larger sensor system by the FM to get the same AOV (or FOV, depending on how we compute the FM) and DOF, and multiply the ISO by the square of the FM to get the same shutter speed. However, it's usually easier to convert the FM into stops, and then add the FM (in stops) to both the f-ratio and ISO of the larger sensor system (FM in stops = 2 ln FM / ln 2). Lastly, we resample the images to the same output size (usually at least as large as the larger size image, but not necessarily so)."

Timmi said:
Timmi said:

1) Same perspective (subject-camera distance)
2) Same FOV (field of view / framing)
3) Same DOF (depth of field) / aperture (aperture = focal length /
f-ratio)
4) Same shutter speed
5) Same output size (same number of pixels / display size)

are equally important.

Click to expand...

Timmi said:
Yes. It is stated there. But you've got a lot of DOF discussion at
the end (last third) which suggest that DOF is the only point that
counts.

I've got even more discussion on AOV/FOV directly above the discussion on DOF. Your conclusion does not follow.

Timmi said:
Timmi said:

There are no "good" or "bad" sides to shutter speed. Shutter speed
is shutter speed. Now, for conditions of "partial equivalence", FF
will have an advantage:

Click to expand...

Timmi said:
There is. It called sensor technology and size (plus comparison with
focal length if you want to). Just imaging a 4/3 sensor could get
1600 as good as a D300. 600m at F5 and ISO 1600 is a advantage which
only can be reached with 35mmFF with a hell lot more of
Money/Size/Weight in practical terms.

Again: Theoretically its easy and simple, practically not that simple
at all.

Again, it's 'cause you're not reading. Let me quote once again:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#equivalence

"This brings us to the omission of "same noise" as a postulate of equivalence. First of all, the only factors that contribute to the total amount of noise are:

1) the total amount of light that falls on the sensor
2) how efficiently the sensor captures this light
3) how efficiently this signal is amplified

If the sensors have the same efficiency, then the total noise for the same level of detail will be the same for equivalent images because the images are made with the same total amount of light (this is discussed in more detail, along with an important exception, in the Noise section of the essay)."

You don't read the essay, and then "accuse" it of ommissions that are directly addressed.

Timmi said:
Timmi said:

Oh but they would. For example, I would definitely get a 5D + 135 /
2L over a 40D + 85 / 1.2L. I would definitely get a 5D + 70-200 / 4L
IS over an E420 + 35-100 / 2.

Click to expand...

Timmi said:
Yes only a 5D. But then that is not a Pro-Grade Body. If you want
ProGrade there is only a D3 or 1Dx.

Again, all addressed in the essay:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#operation

Timmi said:
Hopefully you now get the point...

Perhaps you might read the essay, before making points that are directly addressed in it that you say I'm not getting? Honestly, I'm not trying to be combative, but all these points you raise are directly addressed in the essay, and it's frustrating to see you make statements that I fail to address them, when not only did I address them, I addressed them more than once in several portions of the essay. And then others accuse me of being repetitive! It's a no-win situation!

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Redteg94 · Jun 4, 2008

Timmi said:
Woohhh?

A 5D and a 40D has the same class of Body as a D300 or E3? I think
you need to read the design of such a Body again.

I use all 4 of these cams at the shop I work at (not to mention I own the 40D) and there is no difference in build beween the two Canons and the D300 and E3. True the E3 is weathersealed, and Nikon sort of claims weathersealing for the D300, but in terms of feel of build they are all equally well built. It's also interesting to note that the two Canons are the only ones built in Japan, whereas Oly and Nikon go to low-cost labour countries like China and Thailand to make their cams. Another interesting thing to note is that Nikon bodies have the tendancy to shed the rubber on their grips fairly quickly (some of my clients who got D300s when they hit the market have already sent them in for new rubber; to be fair, these guys shoot A LOT, but I don't see this with other brands)

Timmi said:
Just a hind. Its not about AF, FPS, Noise or Resolution!!

Oh yeah? last time I checked, these factors (and a couple of others) were the ones determining image quality. This is partly why my plastic bodied Rebel XT punches out pictures about as nice as my 40D, or my friend's 1D mk2.

Timmi said:
And as for your oth point: Olympus is only good at entryl level
lenses? Ever used a 12-60 and 50-200 High Grade lens? If not, you
need to.

The 12-60 and 50-200 are great lenses, there's no doubt about that. But they're not exactly lighter and cheaper than competing glass. The Canon 24-105 compares nicely in size and weight and price and performance to the 12-60. The 50-200 is tough to slot in with others, but is a bit lighter, smaller and cheaper than a 100-400, and a bit bigger, heavier and more expensive than a 70-200/4. Both of those compete against the 50-200, so it's difficult to compare

Timmi said:
B
--
iThink, therefore iMac

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

Timmi · Jun 4, 2008

Huh?

I'm not saying you are failing to address them. Its just the way you addressing them. Ands thats why - I'm saying:

When some has less experience and knowledge, it is easy to missunderstand your whole guide at few Keypoints regarding shutterspeed, High ISO values and realistic size/weight/money/F-Number comparisons.

Nothing else.

B

Ps. In german we would say: Dein Bericht ist etwas geschönt (Your report is a bit fitted)
--
iThink, therefore iMac

Jogger · Jun 4, 2008

Razor503 said:
You do know Olympus E4xx and E5xx bodies and lens kits are the least
expensive DSLR+ two-lens kit out there: right? You do know that-right?
That they are $200-$300 ~~less~~ than any comparable introductory two
lens kits;
wait: no one else except Olympus offers under $800 ~~two-lens~~ kits:
what was I thinking of?

Actually, FutureShop had a great deal on the E510 two lens kits that i recommended to my bro, since he wanted a no-nonsense dslr that was better than his point and shoot, and the dust buster on the Oly makes it suitable in that respect... he never has to worry about that. (i dont think hes ever switched lenses though)

He loves it as far as i know.

Timmi · Jun 4, 2008

Redteg94 said:
Timmi said:

Woohhh?

A 5D and a 40D has the same class of Body as a D300 or E3? I think
you need to read the design of such a Body again.

Click to expand...

I use all 4 of these cams at the shop I work at (not to mention I own
the 40D) and there is no difference in build beween the two Canons
and the D300 and E3. True the E3 is weathersealed, and Nikon sort of
claims weathersealing for the D300, but in terms of feel of build
they are all equally well built. It's also interesting to note that
the two Canons are the only ones built in Japan, whereas Oly and
Nikon go to low-cost labour countries like China and Thailand to make
their cams. Another interesting thing to note is that Nikon bodies
have the tendancy to shed the rubber on their grips fairly quickly
(some of my clients who got D300s when they hit the market have
already sent them in for new rubber; to be fair, these guys shoot A
LOT, but I don't see this with other brands)

Feel and Touch doesn't have anything to do with tank built quality or weather sealing or such simple things like a 100% Viewfinder

Redteg94 said:
Redteg94 said:

Just a hind. Its not about AF, FPS, Noise or Resolution!!

Click to expand...

Oh yeah? last time I checked, these factors (and a couple of others)
were the ones determining image quality. This is partly why my
plastic bodied Rebel XT punches out pictures about as nice as my 40D,
or my friend's 1D mk2.

Yes, but again those points have nothing to do to with the design of a Body itself. And that is the reason why the D3 and 1Dx in a way are the only competitors to a D300 or E3.

Its not difficult to built such a body, but why doesn't Canon do that? Only to keep them buying a 1Dx for those points? Even Sony and Pentax get that point to degree.

Redteg94 said:
Redteg94 said:

And as for your oth point: Olympus is only good at entryl level
lenses? Ever used a 12-60 and 50-200 High Grade lens? If not, you
need to.

Click to expand...

The 12-60 and 50-200 are great lenses, there's no doubt about that.
But they're not exactly lighter and cheaper than competing glass. The
Canon 24-105 compares nicely in size and weight and price and
performance to the 12-60. The 50-200 is tough to slot in with others,
but is a bit lighter, smaller and cheaper than a 100-400, and a bit
bigger, heavier and more expensive than a 70-200/4. Both of those
compete against the 50-200, so it's difficult to compare

I'm sorry but the 24-104 not is anywhere near the 12-60 and the 100-400 from Canon is at least two classes under the 50-200. The 70-200 F4 is a good lens and the most interesting in the Canon line up(esp. value for money). But as good as the 50-200 SWD? Nope.

Redteg94 said:
Redteg94 said:

B
--
iThink, therefore iMac

Click to expand...

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

--
iThink, therefore iMac

Jogger · Jun 4, 2008

Timmi said:
I'm sorry but the 24-104 not is anywhere near the 12-60 and the
100-400 from Canon is at least two classes under the 50-200. The
70-200 F4 is a good lens and the most interesting in the Canon line
up(esp. value for money). But as good as the 50-200 SWD? Nope.

Having owned the original 50-200, I can say it is sharp enough, but its bokeh is ABSOLUTELY HIDEOUS! The 50 f2 macro has better bokeh. That is all.

Redteg94 · Jun 4, 2008

Timmi said:
Redteg94 said:

Timmi said:

Woohhh?

A 5D and a 40D has the same class of Body as a D300 or E3? I think
you need to read the design of such a Body again.

Click to expand...

I use all 4 of these cams at the shop I work at (not to mention I own
the 40D) and there is no difference in build beween the two Canons
and the D300 and E3. True the E3 is weathersealed, and Nikon sort of
claims weathersealing for the D300, but in terms of feel of build
they are all equally well built. It's also interesting to note that
the two Canons are the only ones built in Japan, whereas Oly and
Nikon go to low-cost labour countries like China and Thailand to make
their cams. Another interesting thing to note is that Nikon bodies
have the tendancy to shed the rubber on their grips fairly quickly
(some of my clients who got D300s when they hit the market have
already sent them in for new rubber; to be fair, these guys shoot A
LOT, but I don't see this with other brands)

Click to expand...

Feel and Touch doesn't have anything to do with tank built quality or
weather sealing or such simple things like a 100% Viewfinder

I still maintain that the E3 and D300 are no more tanklike than the 40D or 5D, but we may have to agree to disagree here. The E3 has a 100% viewfinder, but the D300 doesn't. Nikon says practically 100%, which I'm not sure if it means 97% or 99% or even 99.5%, but I know it's not 100. That may bother some people, but I don't see how that is a deal breaker. Also, the E3's VF is smaller and about the same brightness as a 40D, but is harder to accurately determine focus (no texture in the focusing screen)

Timmi said:
Timmi said:

Timmi said:

Just a hind. Its not about AF, FPS, Noise or Resolution!!

Click to expand...

Oh yeah? last time I checked, these factors (and a couple of others)
were the ones determining image quality. This is partly why my
plastic bodied Rebel XT punches out pictures about as nice as my 40D,
or my friend's 1D mk2.

Click to expand...

Yes, but again those points have nothing to do to with the design of
a Body itself. And that is the reason why the D3 and 1Dx in a way are
the only competitors to a D300 or E3.

Lol, I think you're the first person I've ever heard say that one. The D3 and 1Dx are in a class of their own, mostly because of performance, but also, they are the only cams rated to 300 000 shutter actuation and are the only Canikons to have real weathersealing. The E3 also has weathersealing, but is not quite built like a 1D. Then again the 1D costs 3 times what the E3 costs. Personally I find the E-1 to have nicer build than the E3.

I think competitors are chosen more on price and performance than the minute difference in build between camera brands.

Timmi said:
Its not difficult to built such a body, but why doesn't Canon do
that? Only to keep them buying a 1Dx for those points? Even Sony and
Pentax get that point to degree.

Again, I don't know why you're so fixated on build. All DSLRs are built well enough to take quite a beating, from the lowly Sigma SD14 (IMO the shoddiest built DSLR I know of, all the way to the D3 and 1Ds3.

Timmi said:
Timmi said:

Timmi said:

And as for your oth point: Olympus is only good at entryl level
lenses? Ever used a 12-60 and 50-200 High Grade lens? If not, you
need to.

Click to expand...

The 12-60 and 50-200 are great lenses, there's no doubt about that.
But they're not exactly lighter and cheaper than competing glass. The
Canon 24-105 compares nicely in size and weight and price and
performance to the 12-60. The 50-200 is tough to slot in with others,
but is a bit lighter, smaller and cheaper than a 100-400, and a bit
bigger, heavier and more expensive than a 70-200/4. Both of those
compete against the 50-200, so it's difficult to compare

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but the 24-104 not is anywhere near the 12-60 and the
100-400 from Canon is at least two classes under the 50-200. The
70-200 F4 is a good lens and the most interesting in the Canon line
up(esp. value for money). But as good as the 50-200 SWD? Nope.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree here. The 24-105 can definitely go toe to toe with the 12-60 IMO. The Canon 70-200s are among the best zooms ever, and the 100-400 is one awesome tele zoom in it's own right. So is the 50-200, but I would never rank it any higher than either of the Canon zooms. You Oly guys can rejoice in the superiority of UWAs compared to Canon, but don't mess with long Canon glass; it's what made Canon what they are today.

Timmi said:
Timmi said:

Timmi said:

B
--
iThink, therefore iMac

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

--
iThink, therefore iMac

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

Mikelis · Jun 4, 2008

joe mama said:
I know all about shallow DOF at 100mm:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=23245812

But shallow DOF with a wider perspective also interests me:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=26773972

Dear Joe,

You sure proved you know what you're talking about!

Thanks for the links: really great shots, they have given me some ideas and I feel inspired to try a few more things for myself. Thanks!

scott_mcleod · Jun 4, 2008

Having shot 35mm SLRs since I was a teenager, I just accepted shallow DOF as a consequence of wide apertures, and (maybe instinctively, I really dunno, it was a long time ago!) appreciated how it can also be used creatively to isolate the subject from the background. And not just for portraits, either.

What really shocked me over the last few days is the downright aggressively negative attitide some posters are displaying toward shallow DOF pics. I honestly never expected such a thing, and I still don't really understand it. I know someone will no doubt reply with a pile of links to other posts about Cartier-Bresson yadda yadda yadda, but that doesn't address the issue of why some people really seem to loathe it as some sort of artsy-fartsy pretence that only serves to "confuse" the viewer and somehow make the photog feel superior. I am at a loss - and happy to stay that way since I like shallow DOF in the right context, and I shoot for myself.

Anyway, here's an animal portrait that (I think) shows how shallow DOF can really give a sense of depth without "confusing" the viewer:

The bigger version shows how little is actually in focus:
http: w w w.pbase.com/smcleod965/image/87747639/original.jpg

Of course, all of the above is just my opinion ... YMMV, as usual!
Scott

joe mama · Jun 4, 2008

Timmi said:
I'm not saying you are failing to address them. Its just the way you
addressing them. Ands thats why - I'm saying:

When some has less experience and knowledge, it is easy to
missunderstand your whole guide at few Keypoints regarding
shutterspeed, High ISO values and realistic
size/weight/money/F-Number comparisons.

Gotcha. The essay is not supposed to be a system comparison, it's supposed to be a treastice on "equivalence", which is not dependent on existing systems. To write up a system comparison, I'd have to delve into the operational advantages (including size, weight, and cost) of the myriad of systems out there, and that's too much unpaid work. : )

Anyway, thanks for explaining that to me -- I simply wasn't getting your point. Apologies!

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

natureman · Jun 4, 2008

joe mama said:
joe mama said:

I think you're being a little naughty in your selection of
quotations. I thought both threads were on the whole quite well
balanced.

Click to expand...

The threads themselves were balanced, but the viewpoints I quoted
come up quite often. I wanted to get a broader base of viewpoints
from other systems.

No, you want to push your own agenda and force feed it to others.

joe mama said:
joe mama said:

I'm happy for your ability to shoot very narrow DOF, and I wish my
system had more of that capability too for when I want to shoot in
that style (though in general it has been sufficient for most of what
I do).

Click to expand...

And I wish my system had in-camera IS, so we're even. : )

joe mama said:

I think the discussion was more around possibly the differences
between what non-photogs and photogs look for in an image, and
whether the latter are perhaps too hung up on what is just one style
of many (naturally not implying that you are And of course, narrow
DOF is one way to achieve an overal artistic goal, but there are
other ways, e.g. selection of background and lighting are perhaps
more powerful and flexible, maybe not so cliched.

Click to expand...

For sure, for sure. But, I have a huge number of clients, and they
all love the pics I have in my office:

Yeah, like your "clients" are going to denegrate the pictures you have on your walls, no matter what they look like.

joe mama said:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=26114171

And while they're not purchasing the pics, many have commented on how
they love the shallow DOF on the shallow DOF pics, and have even
engaged me in discussions about it. Thus, my experience is that the
"average non-photographer" does like shallow DOF. Not to mention,
often the birthday presents I give are shallow DOF candids, and they
have always loved them, and it doesn't appear as though they're
just feigning graciousness.

People always feign graciousness when getting a gift, even if they hate it. That, and your clients' opinions are hardly a final judgement on whether shallow DOF is more appealing or popular than deeper DOF.

joe mama said:
joe mama said:

When I think back to memorable photos, I find I tend not to recall
them so much for their dof, as I do the subject. This sprang to my
mind when looking through my family photos going back 10-50 years...
the interest is in the subject, not how the photographer rendered the
DOF.

Click to expand...

For sure, the subject is key. But the rendering of the subject is
also key, just not as key.

Depending on the subject and the use for the photo. Snapshots of family or friends can be out of focus, too dark, too light, badly composed, have bad colors, etc., and still be well received and enjoyed. Your comment on how "her mother" loves the picture of the little girl is a good example. Of course her mother loves it. It's her daughter. I'm sure the mother would still love it if absolutely everything were in focus, or if just the little girl's entire head were in focus.

joe mama said:
joe mama said:

So the debate was, I think, more around why someone might like, or
buy a photo. And generaly, I believe, it is not so much around the
artistic merits of the photo, but because the subject, the person or
the landscape, has meaning for them. If it is rendered artistically,
then so much the better, but that is not always the prime driver. I
think we as enthusiasts, tend to overestimate the publics' interest
in our craft.

Click to expand...

I would present Ansel Adams photos as counterexample. It was every
bit how much he rendered the subject, as it was the subject itself,
that gave the photos the impact they have.

Yeah, but it wasn't the DOF that gave them impact. It was the lighting/contrast, which was mostly done in a darkroom.

joe mama said:
joe mama said:

So, in summary, I'd agree that control of DOF is a very nice thing to
have, but it is not the only consideration in selecting a system, and
many other factors, including portability, should play their part.

Click to expand...

Sorry if I ever even implied the contrary! I'm just saying that
shallow DOF is but a tool at one's disposal, and don't understand all
the attacks it has taken.

Well, if it is attacked, it's likely because it looks ridiculous and amateurish in most examples and because it has been way overdone. And of course it all depends on how shallow the shallow DOF is.

joe mama said:
--joe

Lee Jay · Jun 4, 2008

Razor503 said:
FYI: The mirror ball image was shot with my DMC-FZ20 "superzoom" and
it's tiny-tiny sensor.
The image belies all the frequent protests that say "small sensors on
P&S cameras don't have shallow DOF; only “FF” DSLRs can control DOF".

Depth of field (DOF) is merely a tool in the hands of those who know
how to use the proper compostional techniques to manage DOF per the
mirror ball.

If you happen to shoot tiny subjects, you can get decent DOF control with compacts. If you are forced to shoot larger subjects, like groups of people, you cannot. This is not a matter of opinion, but one of physics - if you have a sensor that's five times larger, you can do the same thing (in the DOF sense) at the same f-number to a subject that's five times larger. Plus, it's quite common for the larger sensors to have access to lower f-numbers - your FZ-20's f2.8 compared to f1.2-f2 primes on full-frame, for example. This provides an additional advantage on larger subjects:

FZ20 - 6mm (36mm-equivalent), f2.8, 10 feet, DOF = Infinite
5D - 35mm, f2.8, 10 feet, DOF = 4.36 feet
5D - 35mm, f1.4, 10 feet, DOF = 2.11 feet

At 10 feet, a 35mm lens will have an HFOV of about 10 feet. With a subject of that size, the compact has no DOF control (infinite wide open, infinite stopped down), while the SLR does. If you think focal length will help, it won't help much:

FZ20 - 72mm (432mm-equivalent), f2.8, 120 feet (roughly the same FOV), DOF = 24.1 feet - still over 5 1/2 times that of the SLR at the same f-number, and over 11 times as much as the SLR at f1.4. Plus, now you have to have all that room to back up, which isn't always available.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Mikelis · Jun 4, 2008

scott_mcleod said:
Having shot 35mm SLRs since I was a teenager, I just accepted shallow
DOF as a consequence of wide apertures, and (maybe instinctively, I
really dunno, it was a long time ago!) appreciated how it can also be
used creatively to isolate the subject from the background. And not
just for portraits, either.

What really shocked me over the last few days is the downright
aggressively negative attitide some posters are displaying toward
shallow DOF pics. I honestly never expected such a thing, and I still
don't really understand it. I know someone will no doubt reply with a
pile of links to other posts about Cartier-Bresson yadda yadda yadda,
but that doesn't address the issue of why some people really seem to
loathe it as some sort of artsy-fartsy pretence that only serves to
"confuse" the viewer and somehow make the photog feel superior. I am
at a loss - and happy to stay that way since I like shallow DOF in
the right context, and I shoot for myself.

Anyway, here's an animal portrait that (I think) shows how shallow
DOF can really give a sense of depth without "confusing" the viewer:

The bigger version shows how little is actually in focus:
http: w w w.pbase.com/smcleod965/image/87747639/original.jpg

Of course, all of the above is just my opinion ... YMMV, as usual!
Scott

natureman · Jun 4, 2008

I think it all depends on how shallow shallow is. In your picture, I think the DOF is too shallow. I would rather that the lizard were in focus at least to it's rear legs and then gradually out of focus from there back. If the entire lizard were in focus, I'd like it that way too. However, that doesn't mean that I think the picture is no good. It's certainly better than if just the eye of the lizard were in focus, which is what many shallow focus lovers would do.

In your picture, the lizard is the subject. I think that most or all of it should be in focus. If a photographer just wants to emphasize the head, they should just photograph the head. If they want to just emphasize the eye, they should just photograph the eye. The same goes for people shots.

I feel that blur in a photo is sometimes alright, but some people take it way too far. If a background is out of focus, it depends on how out of focus it is and how much of the picture the background takes up. The pictures I see where the in focus area is just a small part of the whole picture generally look weird and as though the photographer doesn't know how to set their camera. It's hard to explain in exact terms.

In your picture there really isn't any background. In fact, the lizard overfills the frame and the tail is mostly missing. To me, the blurry parts overpower the in focus parts and degrade the overall image. If it were mine, I would crop it to eliminate much of the blurry parts.

scott_mcleod said:
Having shot 35mm SLRs since I was a teenager, I just accepted shallow
DOF as a consequence of wide apertures, and (maybe instinctively, I
really dunno, it was a long time ago!) appreciated how it can also be
used creatively to isolate the subject from the background. And not
just for portraits, either.

What really shocked me over the last few days is the downright
aggressively negative attitide some posters are displaying toward
shallow DOF pics. I honestly never expected such a thing, and I still
don't really understand it. I know someone will no doubt reply with a
pile of links to other posts about Cartier-Bresson yadda yadda yadda,
but that doesn't address the issue of why some people really seem to
loathe it as some sort of artsy-fartsy pretence that only serves to
"confuse" the viewer and somehow make the photog feel superior. I am
at a loss - and happy to stay that way since I like shallow DOF in
the right context, and I shoot for myself.

Anyway, here's an animal portrait that (I think) shows how shallow
DOF can really give a sense of depth without "confusing" the viewer:

The bigger version shows how little is actually in focus:
http: w w w.pbase.com/smcleod965/image/87747639/original.jpg

Of course, all of the above is just my opinion ... YMMV, as usual!
Scott

DOF

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts