Rethinking 4/3 Depth Of Field

Started Apr 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
Rriley Forum Pro • Posts: 21,846
Re: It really isn't.

Great Bustard wrote:

Rriley wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

But even when DOF doesn't matter (either because we don't care, or the whole of the scene is well within the DOF even at wide apertures), it's still not about exposure, but about the total amount of light collected:

exposure is the only governance left if DoF doesnt matter

Once again, not exposure, but total light collected:

complete nonsense

if this werent true cameras would have no need of speed priority settings which overide aperture considerations. take a look on your Canon, Im sure you can manage to find it somewhere

Total Light Collected = Exposure x Effective Sensor Area x QE

So, exposure is relevant only inasmuch as it is a component of the total light collected.

'exposure is relevant only inasmuch as it is a component of the total light collected' - ridiculous long winded pedantry,  - 'exposure is the relevant component of the light collected'

Seems we're making progress -- a step up from your previous mantra, "Total Light = Total BS".  But, no, "exposure is the relevant component of the light collected" is not quite right.  Exposure is one of three components:

Total Light Collected = Exposure x Effective Sensor Area x QE

You may have seen that somewhere before.

and naturally not only irrelevant in the context its being discussed, where DoF just doesnt matter,
its completely ignorant of the equally meaningless transverse equations one can make out of this same formula

Exposure = (Effective Sensor Area x QE)/Total Light Collected

If for some reason greater DoF is required (including part of a landscape) smaller sensors are likely to benefit from this restraint having inherently greater DoF, for a given shutter speed and limited widest aperture (f/2.8).

Smaller sensor systems have not "inherently greater DOF" except when we are in apertures deep into diffraction territory (past f/22 equivalent on FF).  For example, if someone is shooting f/8 on mFT for DOF reasons, then the FF photographer would simply shoot f/16.

why do you imagine anything else that what Ive given the restraint is an exposure 20 secs or less as fstops at any aperture are immaterial given that, what on earth do you think you would be doing shooting at f/22

Well, you were talking about the "inherently greater DoF", and I was simply explaining that there was no such thing, except for apertures well into diffraction softening territory.

In short, there is simply no advantage, whatsoever, to having a deeper DOF at the widest aperture.  That's as foolish as saying that an f/4 lens is superior to a f/2 lens because, wide open, the f/4 lens has a deeper DOF.

On the other hand, if the mFT photographer was shooting f/22, the FF photographer cannot shoot f/44 (f/45), so the mFT system would have a DOF advantage.  That said, if "high IQ" is important, then both the mFT and FF photographers would make use of focus stacking, which, incidentally, was just discussed in a nice article here on DPR:

you dont seem to grasp what the issues are here.

So desuka?

you dont get the opportunity for more than one exposure as the earth has rotated relative to the ground, ie the sky ~ 'stars' are now in another location, another exposure is worthless

I posed a question to you some time back:

again a transition into yet more irrelevance

nobody should be concerned about the rest of your attempts at trivial point scoring
they just need to know you are here for the 'entertainment' you claim that gives you

you were given a scenario where DoF, deemd adequate on a particular lens need have no part in a consideration that is wholly about exposure, and you failed miserably to understand the concept or argue your way out of its meaning

you just dont have anything else left

In terms of the visual properties of the final photo, what does 50mm f/2 1/100 ISO 400 do for you on 4/3 that 100mm f/4 1/100 ISO 1600 on FF doesn't?

Your response was:

Answers are voluntary, not compulsory.

In any case, you seem keen on the subject of astrophotography.  Tell us, then, what might be the ideal settings for an EM5 and 6D if two competent astrophotographers were photographing the same scene from the same spot, and why do those settings result in a better photo with the EM5?

who would bother to illustrate this to someone who thinks focus stacking is the answer?

-- hide signature --

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'

 Rriley's gear list:Rriley's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Olympus E-3 Olympus E-5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 +1 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow