MFT Users: Do you miss the shallower depth-of-field of bigger sensor cameras?

Started Feb 8, 2014 | Discussions thread
Godfrey Forum Pro • Posts: 29,417
Re: MFT Users: Do you miss the shallower depth-of-field of bigger sensor cameras?

Great Bustard wrote:

In terms of objective elements of IQ, I think it's pretty straight forward. However, I would hope that you would agree with me when I say that IQ is, at best, merely a component of what makes a photo "successful". Indeed, more than a few of my favorite photos have absolutely horrid IQ, for example:

I have yet to see a useful metric by which to quantify "IQ". I don't care about IQ at all, really, in any quantifiable sense. I care whether a photograph captures expression, gesture, emotion, and looks pleasing-satisfying to my eye, and then to others.

Content is the important part. Image quality is just the teknos required to deliver the content, important up to a relatively trivial level after which it is mostly just a lot of myth and supposition meaning little of significance.

.. I like to know which numbers are relevant, and how the numbers correspond to the visual properties of the final photo. ...

I learned all that stuff forty years ago. I've been doing photography for a little more than fifty years.

But this pleasant discussion has gone way off base from the question posed by the OP. "Do you miss the shallower DoF of bigger sensor cameras?" is what was asked. My answer is no, I choose to use FT for its unique FoV-DoF coupling, and choose focal lengths and lens openings accordingly.

Sure. However, I think the ensuing discussion is worth having, and relevant to the OP.

Perhaps. Somehow, though, I doubt it—I have not seen the OP comment for a long time, so I doubt it is terribly relevant to him/her.

Ah well, time for rest.

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