Potential dead horse: how bad is FF's deep DoF disadvantage?

Started Mar 5, 2014 | Discussions thread
Ontario Gone
Ontario Gone Veteran Member • Posts: 4,183
Re: Zero

Stephan K wrote:

darklamp wrote:

So my question is, for folks who have used an array of different formats extensively, how much does this affect real world shooting?

Not at all. As you pointed out, for constant (deep) depth of field, all formats are the same.

This is not quite accurate. At narrow apertures the pixel-level resolution obtainable is also dependent on the effects of noise. Clearly that favors the sensor with the larger pixel size ( i.e. area per pixel ) other things being equal. So, for example, you're still going to prefer the output of a FF system to a P&S just for noise and dynamic range.

I think you may be incorrect. For example, for the same depth of field, a FF needs to be at 12mm F4 and 2 ISO stops higher than a cropped frame which needs to be 24mm at F2. The 2 stops higher counters the larger pixel size, so for equal depth of field requirements, FF has no advantage.

I was going to correct him but i didn't want to be called a shill. Stephan is correct, if you look at sensor tests like DXO, there is a direct correlation between crop factor and ISO performance. MFT for example is 2x crop, and there is around a 2 stop difference in ISO numbers for any given comparison.

-- hide signature --

"Run to the light, Carol Anne. Run as fast as you can!"

 Ontario Gone's gear list:Ontario Gone's gear list
Nikon D7000 Canon EOS 70D Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow