Macro Photos Without Focus Stacking.

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
ZilverHaylide Contributing Member • Posts: 664
Re: Looking at it from the numberer of pixels, I don't see a difference

AeroPhotographer wrote:

The simplified formula for depth of field is:

Depth = f# x k x (distance / focal length)^2

Where k is a small number depending on the units of "Depth" and the acceptable blur diameter.

The basis for my suggestion is that Depth increases with distance squared. So when you double distance, the Depth increases by a factor of four. will solve the formula for you but the results will depart slightly from the formula due to their using a more complicated formula.


So (to the extent this simplified formula is accurate), this shows clearly why one can't back up but then switch to a more-telephoto lens to compensate. A (for example) doubling of the distance would require a doubling of the focal length to return to the original magnification, but the two doublings would cancel each other out in the formula, resulting in no DOF increase. The only way to gain DOF is for the on-sensor image size to be smaller (lower effective magnification). The image must be small, meaning that on a large sensor, it will take up a small fraction of that sensor. On a smaller sensor, it can occupy a larger proportion of the sensor while still remaining the same small size.

Depending on pixel size on the two sensors, the item imaged might or might not span more pixels on the smaller sensor, more pixels potentially advantageous resolution-wise. The smaller pixels would likely have reduced dynamic range, but for a product photographed in a studio setting, lighting (or HDR) techniques should be able to keep dynamic range under control.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow