Rethinking 4/3 Depth Of Field

Started Apr 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 40,574
Re: It really isn't.

Rriley wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Rriley wrote:

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

I'm gonna cut this short, and simply rephrase my question, which you continue to duck:

Consider a FF camera and an mFT camera, both with equally efficient sensors.  In terms of the visual properties of the final photo, what does 50mm f/2 1/100 ISO 400 on the mFT camera do for you that 100mm f/4 1/100 ISO 1600 on the FF camera does not?

You see, the answer to that question, which you continue to "take the Fifth" on, is the key to your lack of understanding.

it isnt a matter of that

I gave you specific terms which I had asked you to respond to, you failed, now you're just bouncing. You so screwed the beginning that you would sooner do anything but relax and revisit how you got trashed in the first place. That isnt my problem, just sayin...

I'm afraid I don't know what "specific terms" you are speaking of.  Indeed, I don't duck questions.  So, if you'd be so kind as to repost them, I'd appreciate it.  I know this thread is short, so you can post them in this thread:

and this has been a consistent issue with you in DPR for years, whenever you get nailed down and taken to task, whenever you have nowhere to run and nowhere to hide, you lean on a bunch of out of context quotes in an attempt to smear your opposition,and I see you on this last page pulling the same act on King.

Actually, you have that entirely backwards.  First of all, I never duck questions.  I may have missed a question, of course, but I'm not the author of "answers are voluntary, not compulsory".  Please, feel free to put me to the test.

Secondly, as of "out of context quotes", I assure you, the quotes are absolutely in context, and that is why I provide the link, so that others can view the entire "disucssion".

That said Im not dismissive of equivalence...

You are aware, I assume, that I can link and quote tons of posts by you that demonstrate exactly the opposite.  Well, let's start with just one example:

Total Light = Total BS

and we can go from there, as you see fit.

, I just dont use it to bash formats with, and Im as unhappy to see others do just that again and again. Equivalence has its place,but like all things there are two sides to it atleast.

Well, when you can link and quote me using Equivalence to bash another format with, I'll be happy to explain the error in that false charge.  In the meantime...

You figure its all about DoF, fine, but not everyone agrees including the makers of your equipment who include a speed priority mode, its there for a reason, and 'primary' to that is exposure.

You know, I really don't.  I even started a thread exactly on that point:

See you there!

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow