Rethinking 4/3 Depth Of Field

Started Apr 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
jim stirling
jim stirling Veteran Member • Posts: 7,356
Re: Rethinking 4/3 Depth Of Field

Anders W wrote:

zxaar wrote:

Anders W wrote:

zxaar wrote:

Anders W wrote:

olliess wrote:

Anders W wrote:

exdeejjjaaaa wrote:

Anders W wrote:

At high ISOs, which is what the OP was talking about, the E-M5 set at two stops lower ISO than the FF camera (for equal DoF), will go equal for SNR at midtones but do better with regard to shadow noise/DR in comparison with all current FF cameras except the D4 (where it will be a tie).

it is soundly beaten by DR @ high ISO even by Canon (1Dx).

Please read what both the OP and I were actually talking about. With the E-M5 at ISO 3200 and the 1Dx at ISO 12800 for equal DoF, the E-M5 will come out slightly ahead.

From the DxO measurements that doesn't look to be the case for DR between the 1Dx and the E-M5. Interestingly it looks as if the 1Dx beats out the D4 slightly in DR above ISO 2200 or so..

Yes, you are right. I was too quick when checking the graph. So the D4, 6D, and 1Dx belong to the group that ties with the E-M5, when the E-M5 can shoot at two stops lower ISO for equal DoF. The D800, D600, 5D3, and A99 belong to the group that the E-M5 beats.

in practice it does not really matter.

Of course it does. Why wouldn't it?

Because you have just 1 cam at your hand that has fixed sensor size. So in practice you will shoot what it allows you to.

Sure. With better or equally good results for MFT in the particular scenario we are talking about. Which matters to me.

The FF shooter does not always have to shoot at the DOF that omd would be shooting.

Who said that such was the case? And so what?

Then why is all that comparisons with FF. If it really is not the case then as i said in practice it does not matter.

Apparently, you can't distinguish between "always" and "sometimes". How would you otherwise explain your faulty logic?

The fact is that the FF advantage is a sometimes thing, not an always thing. And that sometimes tables are turned and the smaller sensor has the upper hand.

Lets rephrase it as small sensor is an advantage some times and not all the times, also with given the fact that a larger sensor has more ranges of DOF  possible , it is larger sensor that has advanatges most of the time.

Perfectly fine with me if the comparison does not purport to include bulk and weight. Once it does, MFT has the advantage most of the time for my shooting since it increases the versatility of the equipment I carry rather than leave at home, which in turn translates into better image quality.


In a discussion regarding DOF or any other aspect of image quality for that matter just where does size and weight fit in. With the opposing discussion being where does image quality fit into a comparison of size and weight.

What “you” choose to leave behind has no bearing on what others choose to leave behind. It is in fact a classic straw man fallacy where you are debating point A from zxaar {in which he states that a larger senor camera has more DOF options} by responding not with point B , but rather moving off at a tangent to discuss point X { weight and size} , which you randomly introduced into a discussion regarding DOF.


 jim stirling's gear list:jim stirling's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Nikon D810 +12 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow