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

Started Mar 5, 2014 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,545
Re: On "exaggeration"

Ontario Gone wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f / 1.2, 1/50, ISO 1600

Despite it being a tightly framed shot. Would it have looked better at f/2.8 ISO 6400? Dunno. Maybe I should have tried for f/2.8 1/13 ISO 1600 and risked motion blur and/or camera shake?

In any case, what I'm saying is the DOF / sharpness, motion blur / camera shake, and noise all go hand in hand. Since the same total amount of light falls on the sensor for a given DOF and shutter speed for all systems, then anyone complaining of "razor thin DOF" has simply traded deeper DOF for a faster shutter speed and/or less noise.

Exactly, one can switch around those factors within the same format for different results, or even within different formats thanks to the lenses playing their role.

However, it's important to understand the role the lens plays.  For example, f/2 on FF doesn't play the same role as f/2 on mFT.

I totally agree, it is all about personal choice and that is why i don't claim much difference in IQ between them, but many others do, usually the combative FF crew.

What IQ differences exist will certainly depend on the scene, the size the photo is displayed at, and the aesthetics of the viewer.

For your above shot, which is very nice btw, i could have slapped a speed booster on a F1.4 for a F1 equiv which would have put me half stop closer. Or even Voigtlanders are a slightly faster option.

Focal reducers (speed boosters) do not increase the "speed" in the sense that we care about "speed":  DOF and total amount of light projected on the sensor for a given shutter speed.

For example, a 50 / 1.4 with a perfect 0.5x focal reducer (that is, a focal reducer that introduces no additional aberrations) on mFT will deliver the same results as the bare 50 / 1.4 on FF, assuming sensors with the same pixel count, AA filter, and efficiency.

In other words, at best, a focal reducer will allow the smaller format to match the larger format with the added bulk and expense (as well as aberrations) of a focal reducer.

If you have the money to spend on a FF and F1.2 lenses, you have the money to buy a smaller format with faster glass, in the end there isn't much difference.

There are no f/0.8 lenses for APS-C or  f/0.6 lenses for mFT.

You are correct, noise/SS/DOF/aperture are all connected when the same framing is used, so the biggest differences are non IQ related such as price, size, ergonomics, AF, ect.

In my opinion, the differences in IQ between modern (and many not-so-modern) systems is not nearly as important as the operational differences, which include, size, weight, and price, for the vast majority, in terms of the "success" of the photo.

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