The laws of physics have not changed
You've still got no idea. Everyone else is pointing out your flawed "logic" and yet you still think you are right. Quite unbelievable.
I'd put money on it he'll be back with more BS reasoning! LOL
Leonard, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, the CoC is based on the actual, physical maximum print enlargement, assuming you will print all your images to their maximum size, the effect is at best minuscule.The laws of physics have not changed
The circle of confusion changes with sensor size.
The size of the circle of confusion is part of dof calculation formula.
Any change in the size of the COC changes the dof
Leonard, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, the CoC is based on the actual, physical maximum print enlargement, assuming you will print all your images to their maximum size, the effect is at best minuscule.
Additionally, earlier in this thread I posted samples of a DOF calculator which utilizes the CoC factor in their DOF formula as illustrated below, an 85mm lens @ F/2.0 @ 10 FT distance has a DOF of .49 ft on FX and a DOF of .33ft on DX , that's right, the calculator , with the CoC factor tells us that the DOF is THINNER on a DX sensor.
No, I am not the owner, nor am associated with DOFmaster
If the rest of you still believe the world is flat, stay in your comfort zones, we don't want you falling off the edge of the earth
Have an awesome week-end
You are tripping over your own fallacy again and again.Leonard, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, the CoC is based on the actual, physical maximum print enlargement, assuming you will print all your images to their maximum size, the effect is at best minuscule.
Additionally, earlier in this thread I posted samples of a DOF calculator which utilizes the CoC factor in their DOF formula as illustrated below, an 85mm lens @ F/2.0 @ 10 FT distance has a DOF of .49 ft on FX and a DOF of .33ft on DX , that's right, the calculator , with the CoC factor tells us that the DOF is THINNER on a DX sensor.
No, I am not the owner, nor am associated with DOFmaster
If the rest of you still believe the world is flat, stay in your comfort zones, we don't want you falling off the edge of the earth
Have an awesome week-end
You are giving a false example (green lines). The resulting images would be very different.
The thick gray focal length lines are the same (or as close as need be to make the point). Black is FX, red is DX at the same distance with focal changing to keep FoV constant , green is to show decrease in FoV and blue is proper distance at the same focal length to maintain FoV.
Redo your numbers but set your distance correctly such that you get the same resulting image. I guesstimated based on crop factor of 1.4, 10ft for the DX vs. 7 for the FX (blue vs. black lines). Now what do you see? Please post the results for everyone.
Now, keep both at 10ft. Set the D300 to 60mm/f2 and the D700 to 85mm/f2, again to maintain FoV with a crop factor of 1.4 (red lines). What do you get?
Feel free to continue to disagree by ignoring the resulting image.
The 135 DC is my best portrait lens. Better than my 85 1.4 D. Better than my 70-200. Better than any of my Leica glass.
I am sure clients will love their headless, legless portraits so you can get the same DoF for a given focal length, aperture and working distance of a 35mm camera on your DX sensor because DOF Master said so. Composition means nothing.
DOF is affected by exactly two things: magnification and aperture. The reason that people (somewhat correctly) say that sensor size matters is that on FX you need to get closer to your subject than you would with an identical lens on DX, thus increasing the magnification of the image. If you use the same lens at the same aperture at the same distance on FX and DX, the DOF will be identical; however, you will see a wider image on FX.
I wouldn't take a scientific test to clients and present it as artwork.
I coudn't agree more.
