Let me ask another question:
snip
I'd say that's spot on. And I don't really see too many other
considerations cosidering that you can always stop down more on an FX
to get DX type dof (and given FX higher iso capabilities you can
STILL shoot at a higher shutter speeds) whereas when you want LESS
dof there's not much you can do in DX.
IN FACT, when you take into account that FX is less diffraction
limited due to its bigger pixels (if the MP count is the same) you
can stop down more on FX which will yield at least the same dof as
with DX.
Bottom line, in my opinion, FX has no drawbacks when it comes to dof
control.
The ONLY advantage DX has is extra reach with the same lens, and it's
an advantage I really appreciated all last week when I was playing
with a 200-400 and shooting birds, but man am I waiting for the D700
Close enough to be considered equivalent. (Same position, thus same perspective)
Again, dofmaster's numbers are not ones I would use. You'll almost certainly be disappointed when you go to large prints.
The problem that keeps creeping into all of this is the one of perspective. If you want the SAME photograph, you need to keep perspective constant. That FORCES you to use a wider (shorter focal length) lens for DX, because to keep perspective constant you have to be in the same exact position.
You have to be careful with this analogy. When you compared 35mm to medium format, you were using the same basic film in both, thus the same resolution ability per linear mm of film.
Nope
I have to admit, I didin't bother looking at the parameters they employed to determine the CoC (there's much confusion regarding the circle of confusion), but I just hoped that they used the same standards in judging DoF from one fstop/sensor/distance to another so that their relative values would at least have merit. Heck, I'm sure that determining when something BEGINS to lose focus is quite a subjective thing.
I assumed it was a bona fide depth of field difference that would probably be measurablel
Forgive me, but I honestly don't see why capturing a smaller area would change the CoC. If you mean that with FX you have to get CLOSER to the capture area (and by extension THAT will change the CoC) then I wouldn't disagree. But THAT is what gives FX its DoF control advantage using the same lens.
Well, I've found other DoF calculators, and although they may be off a few mm or cm from dofmaster, the ratios between the variables are pretty much the same as dofmaster. I honestly think if it were just a question of cropping then the DoFs should be the same between DX and FX when everything else is kept equal.
I'll keep looking
Aaaaah, this is where we're confusingly running in circles (it could be just me
. If you consider that two photographers should be in the same spot to maintain perspective of the WHOLE image then, you're right, there's essentially no difference in DoF (mind you we'd have to check each instance to make sure lenses are available in both formats, or either may have the advantage given a particular situation). I was looking at it from a perspective of using the same lens on both, and in this case you'd HAVE to move closer with FX thereby giving you less DoF at equal F-stops. Both scenarios are valid, but if you have control over where you are shooting from I think you'll agree that FX gives more options.Can I know what you mean by "same position"?
but throw in high iso iq and making wides wide again and I'ev more than talked myself into it )Seems like like we could have a justification for two bodies - almost
(but not quite) like having two sets of tools (Metric and English);
we could probably get by with one but your explanation of FX makes it
pretty attractive.
Thanks again, Yada
I'd say that's spot on. And I don't really see too many other
considerations cosidering that you can always stop down more on an FX
to get DX type dof (and given FX higher iso capabilities you can
STILL shoot at a higher shutter speeds) whereas when you want LESS
dof there's not much you can do in DX.
IN FACT, when you take into account that FX is less diffraction
limited due to its bigger pixels (if the MP count is the same) you
can stop down more on FX which will yield at least the same dof as
with DX.
Bottom line, in my opinion, FX has no drawbacks when it comes to dof
control.
The ONLY advantage DX has is extra reach with the same lens, and it's
an advantage I really appreciated all last week when I was playing
with a 200-400 and shooting birds, but man am I waiting for the D700
Let me repeat my question a little differently to you:Nope
This is comparing photos taken with DX and FX with EVERYTHING the
same (which will yield two different photos due to different fields
of vision). In THIS case FX has more DoF because it's tantamount to
using a wider angle lens.
In the previous example, the FX was 1.5x CLOSER to the subject,
thereby yielding an equal photo (same fov) but with less DoF.
Like you said, it looks sexy as hell (and I find that's plenty0.7x magnification on D3 viewfinder? What on earth have they crammed
inside the VF box, then? Let me demonstrate.. I have one of these
beauties.
It has 0.8x magnification - and look at the size of the viewfinder! I
believe F3 was the first model where the light meter was situated
below the mirror assembly (rather than inside the viewfinder box) and
the trend has continued up to this day. Therefore it strikes me that
the box on the top of D3 is of such grand scale.
It looks good, yes, but couldn't Nikon have used the ample space to
make an even bigger pentaprism and thus a bigger VF image?
Good point. Though I gotta say, I own one of these:
I've run into a bear (two actually). Don't cross the barrier
I still wouldn't cross the barrier
That is exactly what I'm saying (or at least, that's what the DoF calculators I've found online all seem to say). However, if your friend gets 1/3 closer to the bear (where the bear will take up the same amount of the photo as he does in yours) then he will have LESS DoF.
That does not sound right to me. A cropped FX image is the same as a DX crop image (except it has less pixels). If the subject distance, focal length, aperture and desired circle of confusion are the same, then all relevant optical parameters that go into determining DOF are the same so the DOF will be the same.Let me repeat my question a little differently to you:Nope
This is comparing photos taken with DX and FX with EVERYTHING the
same (which will yield two different photos due to different fields
of vision). In THIS case FX has more DoF because it's tantamount to
using a wider angle lens.
In the previous example, the FX was 1.5x CLOSER to the subject,
thereby yielding an equal photo (same fov) but with less DoF.
If I take a picture of a bear from behind a railing (I'd like to get
closer but we can't cross the barrier) with a D300 and a 300mm lens
and my freind takes a shot with a D3 of the same bear from the same
posiion with an identical 300mm lens, (the bear is sleeping and
doesn't move) then you're saying his shot will have more DOF. And if
he later crops his picture to exclude everything that wasn't in mine
and then prints that resulting cropped image to 8x12 as I have done
with my uncropped image, then his will still show more dof?
John,
