Most commonly the CoC is defined in terms of the diagonal of the "film/sensor" divided by a constant, such a d/1750. Thus if you change the Diagonal of the film/sensor size, you change the CoC for equivalent sharpness at a given output size.I have been thinking for a while on exactly this question - I am
glad you asked.
The issue is whether the 1.6 cropping factor affects the CoC. If it
is a "cropping" factor it would seem that it should have no effect.
Anyone that can explain why one way or the other - please enlighten
me.
This constant of the denominator is based on the output size and viewing distance, and how critical the viewer is. The most common assumption is that the output size is an 8x12 (without further cropping) viewed at reading distance.
The common CoC used by camera companies (about .032mm) is considered a bit loose for high quality output often a CoC of .025mm will be used for film.
35mm Film has been around so long that people just assume some things are contant like the diagonal "d' above. They then "simply" everything and just give a final number for the CoC like it is a constant like PI or the square root of two. Digital has shaken things up a bit and it will take a while for the explainations to catch up.
NOW, all this does not mean that Canon has tighten up the specs on autofocus for DSLRs with smaller sensors. It is very possible that they are using 35mm "specs" which are kind of loose for a DSLR with a 1.6X crop (by about 1.5X). They may have used metrics assuming a full size sensor.
I agree that this is an informative thread.
(PS - Isaac, thank you for such an informative thread! Refreshing.)
Frank
--Just a thought, but those CoC/DOF calculations are based presumablyCanon use a Circle of Confusion of 0.035mm in all DOF calculations
for the EOS system. DOF charts for ALL EF lenses may be found here:
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/f_lens.html
on a full frame sensor. I'm not sure, but with the 1.6x crop
factor, we are scrutinizing an image with a 60% greater degree of
magnification I presume.
Thus what is an acceptable CoC figure gets trashed by the 1.6x
effective magnification of the image? In order to get an
equivalent CoC equivalence on the 10D (or acceptable zone of
focus), would any DOF calculation not have to be based on a CoC
figure 1.6x smaller? Could this be at the root of the perceived
problems?
Simon
I plan on living forever - so far so good!