In defence of depth

Started Oct 26, 2012 | Discussions thread
quezra Veteran Member • Posts: 3,915
Re: In defence of depth

This is all a bit strawman-ish.  Nobody disagrees with the general point that bigger DoF has its uses - least of all landscape photographers. You can get fat DoF with a full frame or APSC camera, and in wide enough circumstances that you won't feel limited to "only certain situations".  And you'll get a ton more detail in your shot with a larger sensor.

The tools for getting fat DoF off full frame or large sensors is to go higher aperture and adjust your shutter speed and ISO accordingly - and you get considerably more acceptable ISO range to compensate for stopping up till the trade-off brings almost no downsides (the new RX1 appears to give acceptable results up to ISO 12800!).  But the only tool you have for getting thin DoF on a small sensor camera is to shove your nose right up to the subject.  The flexibility of the former far outweighs the minor benefits of the latter.

And to the more casual photographer, the one thing point-and-shoot sensors can't do is therefore a differentiating feature and reason why the thin DoF feature is so popular today - because everyone can get gigantic DoF off their cellphones, but you need a big sensor camera to get thin DoF.

TLDR: Everyone agrees thick DoF has its uses.  But big sensor = more flexibility; more differentiation from cellphones

 quezra's gear list:quezra's gear list
Sony a7 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS Sony Alpha NEX-5N Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 +10 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow