DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

Sensor size and diffraction.

Started Jan 2, 2016 | Discussions thread
BobORama
BobORama Senior Member • Posts: 2,842
Re: The conventional definition of depth of field does not depend on pixel size
2

Tom Axford wrote:

Your rather blunt response suggests that you are one of the small minority who believe that depth of field should be defined in terms of the number of pixels in the image rather than just the overall size of the image in the camera (i.e. the sensor size).

My rather blunt response suggests I know optics, physics, math, and causality.

If the conventional definition of depth of field is accepted, then Erik is entirely correct. By conventional definition, I mean that used for the past hundred years; e.g. the definition used when depth of field scales are engraved on manual focus lenses and also the definition used by popular online DoF calculators.

What y'all seem to be taking about is matching the resolving power of the lens with the resolution of the sensor to maximize the overall performance of the camera as a system.   However this ignores several contributing factors to overall IQ.  ISO, NR, and the desire to manage DoF, managing shutter speed.  So of course picking an particular f-stop as "ideal" is ludicrous.

If you wish to start yet another argument about the "correct" way to define depth of field, it might be better done by starting a new thread on that topic.

I am not sure I ever mentioned DoF in my original post. Can you please argue with something I actually wrote? 'Cuz that would be great.

 BobORama's gear list:BobORama's gear list
Pentax K-5 Pentax K-1 Sigma 10mm F2.8 EX DC HSM Diagonal Fisheye Pentax smc DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL WR Samyang 14mm F2.8 ED AS IF UMC +9 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow