In defence of depth

Started Oct 26, 2012 | Discussions thread
Rehabdoc Contributing Member • Posts: 919
Re: In defence of depth

REShultz wrote:

Shallow depth of field is extremely overrated IMO. Many of the best photos have at least some depth of field. In travel photography depth of field provides context. Not to say it is never useful, some portraits look better with thin depth of field.

It's just one tool of many.

But it concerns me that on these forums something I've seen is that it has become a straw man argument. Mirror-less has approached larger cameras in IQ terms and SLR shooters are baiting users of smaller cameras into basically meaningless debates about one of the few things that MILC cameras can't do = thin depth of field. Mirror-less users are falling for the bait and obsessing about what their cameras can not do.


Though obviously small APS-C sensor MILCs like NEX, NX, and EF-M cameras are smaller than their APS-C DSLR counterparts, but have the same capacity for thin DOF.

The straw man argument you're referring to is primarily aimed at Nikon-1 and MFT.


I see the upside of deep depth of field with the Nikon 1 system. I see the upside of thin DOF with bigger sensors.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow