PenguinPhotoCo
Veteran Member
Type. I mean, typO. 
Larger sensor means shallower DOF
smaller sensor means more DOF.
Larger sensor means shallower DOF
smaller sensor means more DOF.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Full frame = more DOF just a myth?
- Thread starter greenLite
- Start date
tom sugnet
Senior Member
For a crop camera, you always need to use a more expensive lens to get the same DOF:
DOFwise:
7d + 85 1.2L = 5d +135 2L
7d + 135 2L = 5d + 200 2.8L
7d + 200 2L = 5d + 300 2.8L
and so on...
--
Feel free to visit my photo sites:
http://tom.st , http://www.foto.tom.st ,
http://pixel-peeping-tom.deviantart.com
DOFwise:
7d + 85 1.2L = 5d +135 2L
7d + 135 2L = 5d + 200 2.8L
7d + 200 2L = 5d + 300 2.8L
and so on...
--
Feel free to visit my photo sites:
http://tom.st , http://www.foto.tom.st ,
http://pixel-peeping-tom.deviantart.com
nothsafoto
Forum Enthusiast
You are making a fundamental mistake though and that is you are changing the distance between the subject and the focal plane by moving closer. For a true test you would not worry about FOV and take the shot exactly the same. In the days of film this would mean that to get a "finished" print of the same FOV you would have to magnify the image during exposure in the darkroom. In the digital world it means you need to crop into the "FF" image to get the same FOV as the crop camera (hence the name...."crop").
Robbie
--
Canon Can...Can you??
Robbie
--
Canon Can...Can you??
nothsafoto
Forum Enthusiast
Further....
I agree totally with your original post if you are trying to achieve the same FOV in-camera. This will definately require you to move either closer or further from your subject depending on the format of the camera sensor/film. This does effect DOF though and is therefore not correct when doing this type of comparison (even though it is a real world scenario).
This arguement is not very good as I do not understand this constant bickering as to what format is "best". Buy the camera that you think will do the best job for you and let others decide what is right for them.
Robbie
--
Canon Can...Can you??
I agree totally with your original post if you are trying to achieve the same FOV in-camera. This will definately require you to move either closer or further from your subject depending on the format of the camera sensor/film. This does effect DOF though and is therefore not correct when doing this type of comparison (even though it is a real world scenario).
This arguement is not very good as I do not understand this constant bickering as to what format is "best". Buy the camera that you think will do the best job for you and let others decide what is right for them.
Robbie
--
Canon Can...Can you??
jayphotoworks
Well-known member
This argument will never be put to rest.. but FWIW:
Larger Sensor = Less DoF, Smaller Sensor = More DoF, done deal.
but try to post that in a new thread anywhere on DPR especially with convincing home-made tests.
Donning the flame suit would be apropos at that point
--
jayphotoworks photography
Larger Sensor = Less DoF, Smaller Sensor = More DoF, done deal.
but try to post that in a new thread anywhere on DPR especially with convincing home-made tests.
Donning the flame suit would be apropos at that point
--
jayphotoworks photography
abovethecrowds
Well-known member
I have followed the arguments on this subject with a lot of questions and some amusements. Some argue that we must compare the same FOV, and other not. However, it is interesting to note your comments. You say FOV doesn't matter, and most who favor crop factor camera's share your view. But to me it just doesn't wash. We are still talking about Cameras. And Cameras produce images. If you want to compare Cameras, we must compare the same images. If you want to artificially crop your images, fine. I won't say you can't. But don't say everyone must handicap (crop) their FF images to compare against other cameras. You only need to see what has happened to Television the last few years. Most folks prefer a larger, wider image with more resolution. Comparing a 4/3 traditional TV picture with a 16/9 or even wider HD picture is to me, the same thing as trying to compare a Crop camera with FF. The differences in dynamic range, color, and noise are much more subtle, although still there, and you may have the same aspect ratio in your sensor, or maybe not depending on the camera, and you may have the latest 18 MP 7D, so not sacrificing that much in resolution, but a 1.6 crop factor camera is still unable to capture roughly 2/3s of a FF image using the same lens. And if you compare unlike lenses, trying to get the same FOV..... wait a minute, that wasn't important.
--
Abovethecrowds
--
Abovethecrowds
David Franklin
Senior Member
I am not making a "fundamental mistake." I leave it to others to characterize your misunderstanding of the issue.
When a person uses a camera with a larger format than another camera they might choose, whether film or digital, they are seeking many different advantages that that choice bestows upon them. One of the primary reasons they do so is that when the time comes to reproduce their image, usually in print - either by inkjet printer or published in offset, that they would not have to up-res their image file (or with film, magnify their negative) to a size any larger than that of its native resolution, or up-res it as little as possible. This is obvious to all people who have thought about it at all. Another way to say this is that a smaller image requires more "magnification" than would a larger image to attain the same size reproduction. With that understanding, your idea that it is a "mistake" to move a larger format camera closer to the subject field to obtain an identical field of view as that of a smaller format camera using the same lens, is shown to be very specious; it presupposes that it would be otherwise desirable to maintain identical depth of field by cropping the larger image to the same size as that taken by the smaller format camera. This is ridiculous. It is otherwise not desirable in almost every way one can think of. WHY would you want to handicap the larger image by cropping it? The fact that the image is larger from the larger format camera is one of the main reasons people use the larger format. If you were to crop the resultant image from the larger format camera to be the same as that from the smaller one, then you may as well just use the samller format camera. In that case you would also lose ALL the benefits from the larger sensor with its higher resolution and/or bigger "pixels." Therefore, you would, of course, want to move the larger format camera closer to the subject to maintain the same field of view, when comparing the depth of field from it to that from a smaller format camera.
While it is true that, with much higher and more developed technology applied to a smaller sensor, that its image size could be the same or larger than that from a larger-sensored camera, it is also, and more importantly, true that when that same tecnology is applied to the larger sensor (which it inevitably will be), that the advantage of the larger sensor will always be maintained. There is no repealing of certain laws of physics as applied to elecro-optical technology. If you only look at very small images on your computer monitor or post small images on the web, well, then I guess none of this matters, and you might as well just use a point'n'shoot anyway.
So, to reiterate, for the same image field, with the same focal length lens, at the same focus point and aperture, which is the only meaningful means of comparison, a larger format camera will always yield an image with a shallower depth of field than that taken by a smaller format camera. The same results when, trying to equalize the field of view of the image taken by the smaller format camera, instaed of moving the larger format camera closer to the subject, the photographer mounts a longer focal length lens on his larger format camera and takes the image from the same distance away from the subject. There's just no way of getting around it. The reality of this is a practical one, and it has motivated hundreds of thousands of photographers with intimate knowledge of photographic cause-and-effects to purchase larger format cameras for well over a hundred years. To deny this seems like sophistry to me.
Regards,
David
--
Keep learning; share knowledge; think seriously about outcomes; seek wisdom.
When a person uses a camera with a larger format than another camera they might choose, whether film or digital, they are seeking many different advantages that that choice bestows upon them. One of the primary reasons they do so is that when the time comes to reproduce their image, usually in print - either by inkjet printer or published in offset, that they would not have to up-res their image file (or with film, magnify their negative) to a size any larger than that of its native resolution, or up-res it as little as possible. This is obvious to all people who have thought about it at all. Another way to say this is that a smaller image requires more "magnification" than would a larger image to attain the same size reproduction. With that understanding, your idea that it is a "mistake" to move a larger format camera closer to the subject field to obtain an identical field of view as that of a smaller format camera using the same lens, is shown to be very specious; it presupposes that it would be otherwise desirable to maintain identical depth of field by cropping the larger image to the same size as that taken by the smaller format camera. This is ridiculous. It is otherwise not desirable in almost every way one can think of. WHY would you want to handicap the larger image by cropping it? The fact that the image is larger from the larger format camera is one of the main reasons people use the larger format. If you were to crop the resultant image from the larger format camera to be the same as that from the smaller one, then you may as well just use the samller format camera. In that case you would also lose ALL the benefits from the larger sensor with its higher resolution and/or bigger "pixels." Therefore, you would, of course, want to move the larger format camera closer to the subject to maintain the same field of view, when comparing the depth of field from it to that from a smaller format camera.
While it is true that, with much higher and more developed technology applied to a smaller sensor, that its image size could be the same or larger than that from a larger-sensored camera, it is also, and more importantly, true that when that same tecnology is applied to the larger sensor (which it inevitably will be), that the advantage of the larger sensor will always be maintained. There is no repealing of certain laws of physics as applied to elecro-optical technology. If you only look at very small images on your computer monitor or post small images on the web, well, then I guess none of this matters, and you might as well just use a point'n'shoot anyway.
So, to reiterate, for the same image field, with the same focal length lens, at the same focus point and aperture, which is the only meaningful means of comparison, a larger format camera will always yield an image with a shallower depth of field than that taken by a smaller format camera. The same results when, trying to equalize the field of view of the image taken by the smaller format camera, instaed of moving the larger format camera closer to the subject, the photographer mounts a longer focal length lens on his larger format camera and takes the image from the same distance away from the subject. There's just no way of getting around it. The reality of this is a practical one, and it has motivated hundreds of thousands of photographers with intimate knowledge of photographic cause-and-effects to purchase larger format cameras for well over a hundred years. To deny this seems like sophistry to me.
Regards,
David
--
Keep learning; share knowledge; think seriously about outcomes; seek wisdom.
Tom Batinich
Senior Member
There is a whole group of people the the 7d/50d-10d forums that have convinced themselves that anything larger than a 1.6 crop is no longer needed. In fact anyone who disagrees with them is believing in a fallacy.
gdanmitchell
Veteran Member
Funny thing is that for quite a few photographers nothing larger than crop IS needed. Cropped sensor cameras can produce very fine images and they are more than good enough for a lot of photography.
Of course, acknowledging that fact it quite a different thing than nonsensically assuming that their requirements are the same as mine, that there are no valuable advantages in using a larger format for other types of photography, or that there are no important differences between formats.
My requirements are different than theirs. For my photography there are clear and significant reasons to shoot full frame. There are differences between the formats.
FWIW,
Dan
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchell
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell
IM: gdanmitchell
Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.
Of course, acknowledging that fact it quite a different thing than nonsensically assuming that their requirements are the same as mine, that there are no valuable advantages in using a larger format for other types of photography, or that there are no important differences between formats.
My requirements are different than theirs. For my photography there are clear and significant reasons to shoot full frame. There are differences between the formats.
FWIW,
Dan
--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchell
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell
IM: gdanmitchell
Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.
David J. Littleboy
Senior Member
That's true if you are comparing cameras with the same pixel count at the same f stop.
But it's more complicated than that.
1. FF stopped down one stop from a cropped camera has (essentially) the same DoF as the cropped camera. There's is no gain whatsoever in maximum achievable DoF in going to a smaller format. So the idea that cropped sensors have more DoF is basically incorrect.
2. In real life for narrow DoF images, FF provides sharper images at a given DoF since you are stopped down one more stop and most lenses are funky wide open.
IMHO, this one's enormous, since it means that there's real value to going to high pixel count FF cameras.
No good deed goes unflamed in the internet age.but try to post that in a new thread anywhere on DPR especially with convincing home-made tests.
Donning the flame suit would be apropos at that point
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Brad Morris
Senior Member
No I am not wrong on any count my friend
Because 100mm physical focal length is the same focal length regardless of what camera you use it on. You will certainly get a different Field of View with the 2 different types of cameras but At the same focal length/aperture/distance to subject the DOF will be identical regardless of what camera you use.
However, because the Field of view is different between P$S and SLR because of the differing sensor sizes, If you want frame a shot the same way with both cameras with that same focal length lens at the same aperture you have to move further away with the P&S. That increases the Distance to subject and increases the depth of field of the image
Likewise, if you keep the same distance to subject, to get the same framing will require a shorter focal length on a P&S compared to the SLR. Shorter Focal Lengths also will give you a greater Depth of Field.
The physics of optics remains the same regardless of what camera it is on. 100mm/2.8 is 100mm/2.8 regardless of what sort of camera it is mounted on. Lens designs may vary the size of the circle of light the lens can project out the back on to the sensor, but the magnification of the subject detail captured by teh 2 lenses will be the same. The difference comes about because you can only record a smaller portion of the projected circle of light cause of the smaller sensor on the P&S - that is larger crop of the image circle.
Remember a lens is simply a combination of shaped glass designed to project an image onto a focal plane. The variations between cameras comes about because of the size of sensor material used to capture a part of that projected image.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/k-blad/
gdanmitchell
Veteran Member
Please make it stop!
Smaller sensor/film cameras do have more DOF at a given aperture when using a lens that provide X angle of view coverage. I think that is all anyone said, and it is both true and important to know this.
Yes, that is one reason. I certainly see this effect when I shoot UWA lenses which are notorious for corner issues.
They also can provide sharper images at a given DOF because any distortions form a smaller relative portion of the full frame width. To offer a gross example, if you have "blur that is 1mm wide" it will be less wide on a print from FF than crop since there are "more millimeters" on the FF.
The issue of how much you must magnify the original capture to get a print of a given size is also relevant.
I'd agree with that. (Though not everyone will benefit from this unless their shooting technique, post-processing skills, and the size they print reveal the differences.)
Dan
--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchell
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell
IM: gdanmitchell
Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.
gdanmitchell
Veteran Member
Sigh....
While that is possible, and even a decent idea in some situations (e.g. shoot "street" with a prime) that is a very unsophisticated way to deal with focal length options in terms of controlling all sorts of elements of composition - the relative size of foreground, subject and background; DOF; etc.
It is also not the way that people actually use their lenses, hence my point about handing a photographer two cameras with different formats and asking them to make the same shot. If I look at a scene and I imagine that some framing/composition will be best, I'll use the focal length that provides the optimum angle of view on the camera I'm holding. If that happens to be 50mm on a 1.6x cropped sensor body it will be 80mm on a full frame body. If 50mm is right on the cropped sensor body I sure as heck am not going to choose to shoot the scene with 50mm on FF just because that worked on crop! (And I'm doubly sure as heck not going to shoot it at 50mm on MF... or LF... or P&S.)
Your statement about the odd and bizarre case of comparing a single focal length on various formats has a grain of "truth" to it, but there are two problems. First, as I'm trying to point out - and it seems so painfully obvious! - it is a situation that doesn't correspond to normal photographic practice and, while fun to think about, has essentially no photographic application. Second, there are other issues at work that have an effect as well including the magnification factor necessary to produce a print of size X from the different formats an so forth.
Bye now. This seems to be a dead end.
Dan
--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchell
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell
IM: gdanmitchell
Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.
Thanks for reminding me that a 100mm lens is a 100mm lens. A hint: I know that.
Here is where I think you are missing the point. You seem to assume that the normal or typical way that photographers work is that they take a lens of some focal length - regardless of what format they are shooting - and simply move closer to or further form the subject to frame it.
While that is possible, and even a decent idea in some situations (e.g. shoot "street" with a prime) that is a very unsophisticated way to deal with focal length options in terms of controlling all sorts of elements of composition - the relative size of foreground, subject and background; DOF; etc.
It is also not the way that people actually use their lenses, hence my point about handing a photographer two cameras with different formats and asking them to make the same shot. If I look at a scene and I imagine that some framing/composition will be best, I'll use the focal length that provides the optimum angle of view on the camera I'm holding. If that happens to be 50mm on a 1.6x cropped sensor body it will be 80mm on a full frame body. If 50mm is right on the cropped sensor body I sure as heck am not going to choose to shoot the scene with 50mm on FF just because that worked on crop! (And I'm doubly sure as heck not going to shoot it at 50mm on MF... or LF... or P&S.)
Your statement about the odd and bizarre case of comparing a single focal length on various formats has a grain of "truth" to it, but there are two problems. First, as I'm trying to point out - and it seems so painfully obvious! - it is a situation that doesn't correspond to normal photographic practice and, while fun to think about, has essentially no photographic application. Second, there are other issues at work that have an effect as well including the magnification factor necessary to produce a print of size X from the different formats an so forth.
Again, the obvious. But instead of resorting to the contorted "you can only record a smaller portion of the projected circle of light" business (yes, we know that!) why don't you complete the sentence with "therefore you will use a different focal length when you switch to a different format and want to make the same photograph."?
Sigh...
Bye now. This seems to be a dead end.
Dan
--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchell
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell
IM: gdanmitchell
Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.
Michael Ma
Leading Member
I think what the op is trying to imply is that there is a misconception that FF sensors gives you a shallower DOF to give you that nice blurry background to really bring out the subject of your photographs.
It is a misconception. The DOF of the lens does not change.
Put both cameras on the same tripod without moving the tripod, and there is no change to DOF. You just get the edges severely cropped. What does change is the composition of the photograph. To shoot the same picture you did with the FF camera, you need to move the tripod back to compensate for the cropped sensor so you can get everything in view, and right ratio of the amount of the background to the subject in the photograph.
When you do this, the net effect is that the DOF around the object in focus will change. It wil become deeper. More things will be in focus, which is really undesirable when trying to achieve shallow DOF shots.
So does the FF camera will give you a shallower DOF? Effectively yes.
FF still rules, and will give you shallower DOF because with a cropped sensor you are foced to stand further behind to capture the same picture with the same lens which will deepen the DOF.
It is a misconception. The DOF of the lens does not change.
Put both cameras on the same tripod without moving the tripod, and there is no change to DOF. You just get the edges severely cropped. What does change is the composition of the photograph. To shoot the same picture you did with the FF camera, you need to move the tripod back to compensate for the cropped sensor so you can get everything in view, and right ratio of the amount of the background to the subject in the photograph.
When you do this, the net effect is that the DOF around the object in focus will change. It wil become deeper. More things will be in focus, which is really undesirable when trying to achieve shallow DOF shots.
So does the FF camera will give you a shallower DOF? Effectively yes.
FF still rules, and will give you shallower DOF because with a cropped sensor you are foced to stand further behind to capture the same picture with the same lens which will deepen the DOF.
Brad Morris
Senior Member
sigh.....
http://www.flickr.com/photos/k-blad/
I am not assuming anything. A fixed focal length is a fixed focal length. I have never said that was the way everyone has to use a camera. Zoom, Change lens etc is of course a more practical way of camera usage. The conversation was about depth of field, not practical photography techniques
again, the conversation is about DOF not practical usage of various cameras for a given situation
no one said that you had too
because we are discussing physics of optics and depth of field!
yes you are right...sigh......
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/k-blad/
Osiris30
Senior Member
To get the same usable (i.e. when printed and cropped) magnification you need bigger more expensive lenses on the FF. (300mm vs. 500mm, etc).
David J. Littleboy
Senior Member
No, I won't. This is one of my favorite axes to grind[g].Please make it stop!
But comparing a 50mm lens at f/8 on cropped camera with an 80mm lens at f/8 on an FF camera is a very similar mistake to trying to compare a 50mm lens on a cropped camera with a 50mm lens on an FF camera.
To a good first approximation, f/11 on an FF camera is essentailly equivalent to f/8 on a cropped camera (with a 1.6x shorter lens). They have very similar DoF, MTF, and photon statistical noise properties.
And, in both cases, whatever it (diffraction or shutter speed) is that stops you from stopping down one more stop on the cropped camera, lets you stop down one more on FF.
I find this not only useful but interesting. It says that no matter how small you make a camera, it is still going to act like a camera, albeit a more and more limited camera.
And the "everyone knows it, and it's true" point that "smaller sensors have more DoF at the same f stop", leads people to think that P&S cameras have near-infinite DoF, when actually they have no more DoF than an FF camera.
Here's the bottom line:
As long as the pixel counts are the same, any photographic function you can achieve on a cropped camera can be also achieved on a FF camera . You have to change the focal length and f stop (but not the shutter speed (the reason for this is left as an excercise for the reader)!).
Actually, I'm more concerned with center sharpness. Most fast wide lenses are funky wide open and a dense sensor makes them look more so. With FF, you get to shoot a less radical wide (e.g. 35/1.4 vs. 24/1.4) at f/2.0. The coarser pixel spacing, better lens*, and stopped down is a three-fold advantage to the larger format.
(Yuck: my footnote's asterisk turns out to be a bold marker.)
: The general rule that (at least from 20 to 100mm on FF) the longer the focal lenth the easier it is to make a fast lens good breaks down in actual practice, since differfent lenses have different amounts of optical technology (aspheric elements, funny glass) thrown at them.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Kabe Luna
Veteran Member
...it's all just a myth. But for folks who take pictures, there's more to it. You see, no one uses the same lenses to achieve a give result on all formats. For example, 50mm can be used for portraits on APS-C/DX, but most would agree its too short on full frame, and a wide angle on medium format, so in practice the technicality of DOF being the same for a give focal length and subject distance is trivial–nobody works that way. For a full frame portrait, I grab at least an 85mm, and for medium format it's at least 110mm. Now we have significantly different DOF characteristics for across the different formats at the same subject distance. That is the way photographers think and work.
I shoot people and I like to work from a distance that is comfortable for my subject, but also allows for communication as we work together. I'm not going to shoot from the other room with an 85mm on APS-C just to get sufficiently narrow DOF, I'm going to use a shorter lens and have to accept the additional DOF at the working distance I prefer. Landscape and architectural shooters are a bit difference as they seem to universally prefer more depth of field, so the smaller format may actually be preferred...except that many specialty lenses are designed for the 35mm/full frame digital format, and again provide impractical working distances or too-narrow fields of view on 1.6x cameras.
One's frame of reference also influences one's aesthetic and expectations. Having shot (and developed a love for the look of images shot on) medium format, 35mm defines the lower limit of what I consider attractive depth of field characteristics when f/2.8-and-faster lenses are used. APS-and-smaller film formats; APS-C and 4/3 DSLRs and compact digicams, to varying degrees, deliver too much depth of field in practical applications to be of broad interest to me.
On the other hand, had I never touched film and my photographic experience begun with APS-C DSLRs, I'd probably feel larger formats give too little DOF in practice.
- -
Kabe Luna
http://www.garlandcary.com
I shoot people and I like to work from a distance that is comfortable for my subject, but also allows for communication as we work together. I'm not going to shoot from the other room with an 85mm on APS-C just to get sufficiently narrow DOF, I'm going to use a shorter lens and have to accept the additional DOF at the working distance I prefer. Landscape and architectural shooters are a bit difference as they seem to universally prefer more depth of field, so the smaller format may actually be preferred...except that many specialty lenses are designed for the 35mm/full frame digital format, and again provide impractical working distances or too-narrow fields of view on 1.6x cameras.
One's frame of reference also influences one's aesthetic and expectations. Having shot (and developed a love for the look of images shot on) medium format, 35mm defines the lower limit of what I consider attractive depth of field characteristics when f/2.8-and-faster lenses are used. APS-and-smaller film formats; APS-C and 4/3 DSLRs and compact digicams, to varying degrees, deliver too much depth of field in practical applications to be of broad interest to me.
On the other hand, had I never touched film and my photographic experience begun with APS-C DSLRs, I'd probably feel larger formats give too little DOF in practice.
--
- -
Kabe Luna
http://www.garlandcary.com
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum