Focus Precision

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.
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.

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
Canon 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
Just a thought, but those CoC/DOF calculations are based presumably
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!
 
The point is that single pixel sharpness is something you're unlikely to get from the lens anyway. You're trying to enlarge to really ridiculous levels if you want single-pixel sharpness. It is reasonable to enlarge up to perhaps A4 size, and that's still a larger level of enlargement than most people would make from 35mm film. And if you look at the image at such a size, then the CoC used results in an acceptable level of sharpness, since that is how the 0.035 CoC was chosen in the first place.

Expecting to make 30"x20" prints off a 22.5x15mm sensor IS NOT REALISTIC.
How are you deciding that your image is out of focus? Bear in mind
that canon use a Circle of Confusion of 0.035mm for all EOS system
DOF/AF. The pixels on a 10D or D60 are 0.0074mm in size, so the DOF
for single pixel sharpness is very much less than the DOF defined
by the COC.
If Canon considers 7.4u-pixel sensor covered with 35u CoC
acceptable, that's simply ridiculous. That means, pixels are
terribly wasted. 22.7x15.1mm effectively has VGA resolution when
covered with 0.035mm spots (22.7/0.035=649, 15.1/0.035=431,
649x431=0.28 megapixels. Ouch!). Whny then have 6.3MP on that
sensor? Just in case that accidentally, with 20% chance the CoC due
to focus [in]accuracy will be less than 7.4u?
If you're looking at the output 100% on a monitor, that is an
unrealistic enlargement. Think about it. 1280x960 on a 19" monitor
viewing a D60/10D image at 100% is around a 39X enlargement from a
22.5x15mm sensor. How would it look making a 30"x20" print from a
piece of film that size? Because that's what you're doing looking
at it at 100%, and asking for single-pixel sharpness viewed from
12" away is deeply unrealistic.
No matter what, each and every of 6.3 million pixels must record
valuable information, must be sharp. Otherwise, it doesn't make
sense to have 6MP in the first place. Pixels these days are still
larger than physical limits posed by lens aberrations and
diffraction, so not having each pixel record every bit of
resolution the lens is capable of is lame.

Canon must wake up and redesign their AF system so that maximum CoC
due to AF inaccuracy is less than pixel size.

--
Mishkin
--
Mostly Full Frame user!

EOS Tree + Nikon Coolscan III
Deef Hurty.
 
Canon 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
Just a thought, but those CoC/DOF calculations are based presumably
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?
Very much so. This is the point I am trying to get across. The system works within precision boundaries defined in the 80s around 35mm film. The 1.6X FOV crop results in these issues by virtue of the fact that it is a smaller sensor so for any given output size the level of enlargement is greater. Viewing at 100% on screen is akin to making a 48"x32" print from 35mm film! Not realistic.

--
Mostly Full Frame user!

EOS Tree + Nikon Coolscan III
Deef Hurty.
 
The origin of the CoC is through a reasonable enlargement of a 35mm frame and the smallest object that the human eye can distinguish. Because the smaller sensor in the DSLR leads to greater levels of enlargement, a smaller CoC is required in order to get back to the smallest object we can distinguish.

Read Reichmann's DOF tutorial: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dof.shtml

You see that the CoC is defined around a 5X enlargement, or a 7.5"x5" print from 35mm film. A 5x enlargement from a 10D or D60 is only 4"x2.7". However, people do get good results up to 10x8 or so, but please, please, please, give up the notion that 100% onscreen or 30"x20" prints are reasonable! No format in the world will reasonably tolerate a 40X enlargement!

--
Mostly Full Frame user!

EOS Tree + Nikon Coolscan III
Deef Hurty.
 
That number is attained in this fashion:

Typical image editing setup: 19" CRT at 1280x960. Taking a random screen (lacie electron 19 blue IV) which has a horizontal viewable of 344mm, this leads us to a pixel size of 0.27mm (344/1280). Multiply that by the horizontal resolution of the 10D/D60 (3072) and you get around 825mm. That's over 32". I'm not talking about actually making a print that size necessarily, but that's the sort of size that looking at the image on screen at 100% is akin to with regard to enlargement level of the sensor pixels. Now divide the 825mm by 22.5mm and get 36.7. That's the level of enlargement that you're dealing with. Now multiply the size of a 35mm film frame (36mmx24mm) and you will get 1320mm width. That's 51"
Cheers
Viewing at 100% on screen is
akin to making a 48"x32" print from 35mm film! Not realistic.

--
Mostly Full Frame user!

EOS Tree + Nikon Coolscan III
Deef Hurty.
--
Ian S
http://www.rainpalm.com
http://www.mekongpicturehouse.com
--
Mostly Full Frame user!

EOS Tree + Nikon Coolscan III
Deef Hurty.
 
with a D60 or 10D the COC is much smaller. My program would
calculate it as something between 19 and 27 dependiing on the
desired print size and lines/mm of the print.
That would be the desired CoC for the smaller format and greater levels of enlargement. But the AF system and the lenses are still constructed around the CoC of 0.035mm.

--
Mostly Full Frame user!

EOS Tree + Nikon Coolscan III
Deef Hurty.
 
What I saw their test is some 10D and lens combination give a focus point well beyond the DOF range, it's sad for them.

How about other brand, like Nikon D100, their owner seem no complaint. Is that Nikon AF system has higher precision than Canon? Just curious.
Typical image editing setup: 19" CRT at 1280x960. Taking a random
screen (lacie electron 19 blue IV) which has a horizontal viewable
of 344mm, this leads us to a pixel size of 0.27mm (344/1280).
Multiply that by the horizontal resolution of the 10D/D60 (3072)
and you get around 825mm. That's over 32". I'm not talking about
actually making a print that size necessarily, but that's the sort
of size that looking at the image on screen at 100% is akin to with
regard to enlargement level of the sensor pixels. Now divide the
825mm by 22.5mm and get 36.7. That's the level of enlargement that
you're dealing with. Now multiply the size of a 35mm film frame
(36mmx24mm) and you will get 1320mm width. That's 51"
Cheers
Viewing at 100% on screen is
akin to making a 48"x32" print from 35mm film! Not realistic.

--
Mostly Full Frame user!

EOS Tree + Nikon Coolscan III
Deef Hurty.
--
Ian S
http://www.rainpalm.com
http://www.mekongpicturehouse.com
--
Mostly Full Frame user!

EOS Tree + Nikon Coolscan III
Deef Hurty.
--
Go ahead, never look back
 
OK, I'll take your arithmetic at face value, so that's still about 96dpi, on your screen isn't it? But I guess I take your point.

Cheers
Typical image editing setup: 19" CRT at 1280x960. Taking a random
screen (lacie electron 19 blue IV) which has a horizontal viewable
of 344mm, this leads us to a pixel size of 0.27mm (344/1280).
Multiply that by the horizontal resolution of the 10D/D60 (3072)
and you get around 825mm. That's over 32". I'm not talking about
actually making a print that size necessarily, but that's the sort
of size that looking at the image on screen at 100% is akin to with
regard to enlargement level of the sensor pixels. Now divide the
825mm by 22.5mm and get 36.7. That's the level of enlargement that
you're dealing with. Now multiply the size of a 35mm film frame
(36mmx24mm) and you will get 1320mm width. That's 51"
Cheers
Viewing at 100% on screen is
akin to making a 48"x32" print from 35mm film! Not realistic.

--
Mostly Full Frame user!

EOS Tree + Nikon Coolscan III
Deef Hurty.
--
Ian S
http://www.rainpalm.com
http://www.mekongpicturehouse.com
--
Mostly Full Frame user!

EOS Tree + Nikon Coolscan III
Deef Hurty.
--
Ian S
http://www.rainpalm.com
http://www.mekongpicturehouse.com
 
OK, I'll take your arithmetic at face value, so that's still
about 96dpi, on your screen isn't it? But I guess I take your
point.
Yes, it is. I take your point and you are right about it. I think we're coming at the same thing from different angles. The fact is that I think you'd agree that it's an unrealistic level of enlargement, which appears to be a part of the issue here.

--
Mostly Full Frame user!

EOS Tree + Nikon Coolscan III
Deef Hurty.
 
http://www.anstendig.org/WhyNoCameraCanFocus.html
I posted this in another thread as a reply, but I think it has a
wider appeal, so I am reposting it as a thread in its own right,
and making a few clarifications.

[snip]

AF systems work to a specific precision. In the canon EOS system,
there are two precisions.

Normal Precision. This is the precision that the vast, overwhelming
majority of canon EOS cameras work to. To know what cameras work to
this precision, read the list of cameras which come under the high
precision category. If it's not on there, it's normal precision.
The important ones for this forum are to note that the D30, D60 and
10D (I'm making an educated guess...you'll see why) are all normal
precision cameras.

High Precision. The only cameras capable of high-precision AF are
the EOS 1, EOS 1N (and RS), EOS 3, EOS 1V, EOS 1D and the EOS 1DS,
and HP AF is not available with all lenses, depending on maximum
aperture. With variable-aperture zoom lenses, only the slowest
aperture value is noted. With the EOS 1, HP AF is enabled when a
lens of F2.8 or faster is used. With the EOS 1N, HP AF is enabled
on the central focus point only when a lens of F2.8 or faster is
used. On the EOS 3, 1V, 1D and 1DS, HP AF is enabled on the central
focus point on an F4 or faster lens, and then a further 6 points (3
above, 3 below) when an F2.8 or faster lens is used. Note that on
all of these cameras, HP AF is combined with cross-type focus
sensors.

Canon are notably vague on the difference between normal precision
and high precision. However (and I'll check on this, but this is to
the best of my knowledge), the best definition I know of is that
Normal precision will put the lens within 100% of the DOF from the
"perfect" point of focus. High precision will put the camera within
33%. The DOF used is that of the lens wide open (so, almost
paradoxically, the smaller the DOF, the closer you will be to ideal
focus). This is one reason that faster lenses give you better
focusing (the other, of course, being that they provide the focus
sensors with more light in a given situation).

Reference: http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/faq30/eos3af.html

[ snip]

Clarifications: The EOS 10D is likely a normal precision camera
since it uses the 7 point AF system as used by the EOS 30, EOS 300
and EOS 300v, which are all normal precision cameras. The only
instance where what appeared to be the same focus system was
available in normal precision and high precision "flavours" was
that of the EOS 5 (Normal Precision) and EOS 1N (High precision as
previously described). However, the EOS 5's central AF point was
cross type to F5.6, whilst the 1N's was Cross-Type High precision
at F2.8 or faster only.

Variable Aperture Zoom lenses. Source of further confusion on the
cross-type/high-precision issue. Look at the central sensor of the
EOS 3/1V/1D/1DS AF system, and it is cross-type, high precision
(XTHP from now on) at F4 and faster. So what happens with a zoom
lens that crosses this boundary?

Let's take the popular 28-135 F3.5-5.6 IS USM as an example.
Obviously at the long end this lens can not provide XTHP focus.
However, at F3.5, the short end is fast enough for XTHP to work.
However, rather than have XTHP cut in and out, Canon decided to
disable XTHP with such a lens. Thus the 28-135 IS does NOT enable
XTHP, and neither does the 24-85 F3.5-4.5 for example. The 70-200
F4L DOES enable XTHP.

Note that with the older XTHP AF systems of the EOS 1 and EOS 1N,
an aperture of F2.8 was required, and so the 28-80 F2.8-4L USM did
NOT enable XTHP with these cameras, and was a major reason for the
demise of this lens in favour of the 28-70 F2.8L which does enable
XTHP.

--
Full Frame user!

EOS 3 + Nikon Coolscan III
--
Mishkin
--
Ian S
http://www.rainpalm.com
http://www.mekongpicturehouse.com
 
Yes, I'm actually agreeing with pretty much everything you are saying about COC, and viewing at 100%. Actually I do view at 100%, but with strictly managed expectations, when doing sharpening.

Mind you I have printed reasonable 12*18 prints from a D30...

Cheers
OK, I'll take your arithmetic at face value, so that's still
about 96dpi, on your screen isn't it? But I guess I take your
point.
Yes, it is. I take your point and you are right about it. I think
we're coming at the same thing from different angles. The fact is
that I think you'd agree that it's an unrealistic level of
enlargement, which appears to be a part of the issue here.

--
Mostly Full Frame user!

EOS Tree + Nikon Coolscan III
Deef Hurty.
--
Ian S
http://www.rainpalm.com
http://www.mekongpicturehouse.com
 
What I saw their test is some 10D and lens combination give a focus
point well beyond the DOF range, it's sad for them.
I don't doubt that there may be problems with some 10Ds, but I suspect the problem is rather less widespread than many believe, for reason outlined below.
How about other brand, like Nikon D100, their owner seem no
complaint. Is that Nikon AF system has higher precision than Canon?
I am not aware that Nikon's AF system is any higher precision than canon's at a competing level.

However, I suspect that the 10D is attracting MANY more people into the fold who have not used an SLR before. So while the D100 attracts those in place in the nikon system, with experience and probably an F100 or F5 who understand about reasonable levels of enlargement, etc, the 10D is attracting many more new people.

Then when someone comes up with a genuine complaint about the 10D, the new people immediately jump on the bandwagon, when often there is a combination of human factors at play. Inexperience, unrealistic expectation and the wish to blame the equipment.

As I've said, I'm sure that there are some faulty 10Ds. But nowhere near as many as people would like to believe. The information in this thread gives some explanation as to part of the issue for inexperienced users.

--
Mostly Full Frame user!

EOS Tree + Nikon Coolscan III
Deef Hurty.
 
Hi,
Two systems, the lens and body - which one is at fault?

1. The lenses inability to rotate finely enough (hence the USM/other motors step resolution even if analog)

2. or the cameras AF system for detecting the point where to focus & move the lens to?

Since Macro lenses are finer, has anybody experienced this problem with the 50mm f2.5 or 100mm f2.8 ?

Has anybody considered the effect of mirror miss-alignment or is that not an issue?

-Mike.
I posted this in another thread as a reply, but I think it has a
wider appeal, so I am reposting it as a thread in its own right,
and making a few clarifications.

[snip]

AF systems work to a specific precision. In the canon EOS system,
there are two precisions.

Normal Precision. This is the precision that the vast, overwhelming
majority of canon EOS cameras work to. To know what cameras work to
this precision, read the list of cameras which come under the high
precision category. If it's not on there, it's normal precision.
The important ones for this forum are to note that the D30, D60 and
10D (I'm making an educated guess...you'll see why) are all normal
precision cameras.

High Precision. The only cameras capable of high-precision AF are
the EOS 1, EOS 1N (and RS), EOS 3, EOS 1V, EOS 1D and the EOS 1DS,
and HP AF is not available with all lenses, depending on maximum
aperture. With variable-aperture zoom lenses, only the slowest
aperture value is noted. With the EOS 1, HP AF is enabled when a
lens of F2.8 or faster is used. With the EOS 1N, HP AF is enabled
on the central focus point only when a lens of F2.8 or faster is
used. On the EOS 3, 1V, 1D and 1DS, HP AF is enabled on the central
focus point on an F4 or faster lens, and then a further 6 points (3
above, 3 below) when an F2.8 or faster lens is used. Note that on
all of these cameras, HP AF is combined with cross-type focus
sensors.

Canon are notably vague on the difference between normal precision
and high precision. However (and I'll check on this, but this is to
the best of my knowledge), the best definition I know of is that
Normal precision will put the lens within 100% of the DOF from the
"perfect" point of focus. High precision will put the camera within
33%. The DOF used is that of the lens wide open (so, almost
paradoxically, the smaller the DOF, the closer you will be to ideal
focus). This is one reason that faster lenses give you better
focusing (the other, of course, being that they provide the focus
sensors with more light in a given situation).

Reference: http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/faq30/eos3af.html

[ snip]

Clarifications: The EOS 10D is likely a normal precision camera
since it uses the 7 point AF system as used by the EOS 30, EOS 300
and EOS 300v, which are all normal precision cameras. The only
instance where what appeared to be the same focus system was
available in normal precision and high precision "flavours" was
that of the EOS 5 (Normal Precision) and EOS 1N (High precision as
previously described). However, the EOS 5's central AF point was
cross type to F5.6, whilst the 1N's was Cross-Type High precision
at F2.8 or faster only.

Variable Aperture Zoom lenses. Source of further confusion on the
cross-type/high-precision issue. Look at the central sensor of the
EOS 3/1V/1D/1DS AF system, and it is cross-type, high precision
(XTHP from now on) at F4 and faster. So what happens with a zoom
lens that crosses this boundary?

Let's take the popular 28-135 F3.5-5.6 IS USM as an example.
Obviously at the long end this lens can not provide XTHP focus.
However, at F3.5, the short end is fast enough for XTHP to work.
However, rather than have XTHP cut in and out, Canon decided to
disable XTHP with such a lens. Thus the 28-135 IS does NOT enable
XTHP, and neither does the 24-85 F3.5-4.5 for example. The 70-200
F4L DOES enable XTHP.

Note that with the older XTHP AF systems of the EOS 1 and EOS 1N,
an aperture of F2.8 was required, and so the 28-80 F2.8-4L USM did
NOT enable XTHP with these cameras, and was a major reason for the
demise of this lens in favour of the 28-70 F2.8L which does enable
XTHP.

--
Full Frame user!

EOS 3 + Nikon Coolscan III
--
Mishkin
--
Ian S
http://www.rainpalm.com
http://www.mekongpicturehouse.com
 
The origin of the CoC is through a reasonable enlargement of a 35mm
frame and the smallest object that the human eye can distinguish.
Because the smaller sensor in the DSLR leads to greater levels of
enlargement, a smaller CoC is required in order to get back to the
smallest object we can distinguish.
Thanks for confirming that - that's what I thought.
However, people do get good results up to 10x8 or so,
but please, please, please, give up the notion that 100% onscreen
or 30"x20" prints are reasonable! No format in the world will
reasonably tolerate a 40X enlargement!
I agree entirely. I'm not sure if you are addressing this to me - as I've explained before, I'm looking to see how the plane of actual focus measures up to the plane of desired focus, and trying to establish if that falls outside a zone of acceptable DOF. Nothing at all to do with 20x30 or 40x enlargements :) It's good though to highlight this issue, as Photoshop's zoom function may well be making expectations fail for some.

Simon
 
Very much so. This is the point I am trying to get across. The
system works within precision boundaries defined in the 80s around
35mm film. The 1.6X FOV crop results in these issues by virtue of
the fact that it is a smaller sensor so for any given output size
the level of enlargement is greater. Viewing at 100% on screen is
akin to making a 48"x32" print from 35mm film! Not realistic.
Thanks once more for confirming my thoughts. Once again I'd say, it's not me looking at 100% (or larger) enlargements. I'm looking a placement of the plane of actual focus vs desired focus and trying to establish if that is outside of a normal tolerable DOF calculation. Nothing to do with what I'm seeing on screen.

Simon
 
Since Macro lenses are finer, has anybody experienced this problem
with the 50mm f2.5 or 100mm f2.8 ?
Yes - this was my concern. With the 100USM Macro, according to a 35mm dof calculator, my camera with 100mm Macro at 5ft from the subject, and f2.8 aperture was showing an AF focused plane of focus behind the rear limit for acceptable DOF. I tried the test repeatedly, letting the lens focus from infinity to the target, and from the closest focus point to the target to try and rule out slop in the mechanism. The plane of focus was consistent, but behind the limit for acceptable dof. Focussing manually showed the same error in plane of focus. Thus despite everything looking fine in the viewfinder, the focus at the "film plane" is out.

That to me would indicate the VF screen is misaligned (though you'd expect a consistent error across all lenses, and I don't have that), or the AF sensor in the body is misaligned, or the sensor itself is not where it should be, or the lens itself needs adjustment or or or.......... Too many variables!

What I don't have is a DOF calculator that has been normalized for this sensor format, and Canon's own CoC size criteria. With that, I could definitely see if it is out of tolerance. I've only got the 35mm DOF calculator to base my results on, and those aren't valid, as we are magnifying the image 1.6x inherently with the smaller sensor size in the 10D.

Simon
 
Nice Post !!

Just as a test, let us assume two systems:

Canon EOS IX APS (1.6 factor)
Canon EOS 10D (1.6 factor)

Same Lens (24-85)

Film in EOS IX, ISO 200 processed and scanned at 2400 dpi.

Same subject, tripod mounted, tripod not moved, varying lighting conditions.

Which image would be sharper ?

Should one assume that the images will be equal ???
 
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.

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.
This is interesting....
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.
Thanks for the explanation - I was trying (perhaps erroneously - not sure) to use a 35mm DoF calculator to see if my plane of (auto) focus was falling within the 35mm definition for acceptable focus. If I'm reading the discussion right, 35mm is actually more tolerant of lens/body focus variance than 1.6x sensor cameras. That's logical to me, as the 1.6x crop is effectively providing a magnification factor - for the same size output image.

By my thinking, if the camera is not focussing within the acceptable DoF (as provided for given parameters in a 35mm dof calculator), then it is most likely out of spec period. The 1.6x sensor just exacerbates the situation further still. A dof calculator that factored in the smaller sensor size and subsequent magnification required - for the same size image, would show what with regard to the former test? Would it be more critical still? That bit I'm still trying to get my head around, as I know DoF doesn't itself change due to the smaller sensor.
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.
This is my belief - it would be hard for Canon to do otherwise with all the thousands/millions of EF fit lenses "in the field", all designed to work on a 35mm criteria within acceptable tolerances - for that format. The smaller sensor size is (perhaps clearly) testing those tolerances to (outside?) the limits, and an errant combination of body/lens could stretch the tolerances - in the smaller sensor format - beyond what they originally deemed as acceptable.

Simon
 
The origin of the CoC is through a reasonable enlargement of a 35mm
frame and the smallest object that the human eye can distinguish.
Because the smaller sensor in the DSLR leads to greater levels of
enlargement, a smaller CoC is required in order to get back to the
smallest object we can distinguish.
Yes Isaac, ...,When I wrote:

"At the greater enlargement, fewer parts of the image will be within the CoC limits set as "acceptable", ...i.e. DoF." I was comparing (and should have made clearer) an identical lens, position, and CoC for both shots.
Read Reichmann's DOF tutorial:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dof.shtml

You see that the CoC is defined around a 5X enlargement, or a
7.5"x5" print from 35mm film. A 5x enlargement from a 10D or D60 is
only 4"x2.7". However, people do get good results up to 10x8 or so,
but please, please, please, give up the notion that 100% onscreen
or 30"x20" prints are reasonable! No format in the world will
reasonably tolerate a 40X enlargement!
No doubt, ...but Stephen Eastwood has sure been coming up with some impressive "enlargements" at those sizes ;-)

Larry
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top