Choosing a full frame camera - any help and advice much appreciated

bobn2 said:

J A C S said:

Michael Fryd said:

For instance, a full frame with a 50mm lens at f/8 will yield the same quality as a 2X crop body with a 25mm lens at f/4. Both will produce visually identical images.

Click to expand...

Is that why landscapes are best shot on m43?

Click to expand...

There are lots of different landscapes. Quite a few landscapers insist on deep DOF (I'm not one of them). If they are hand holding and using an FF camera at f/11 to get the DOF they want, chances are that FF is a waste for them

Click to expand...

I am not sure that I would call the new FF Sony 20-70mm a "waste", even if I use it at f/11.

Again, the good question is not if one needs FF (in which case you call FF a waste), the good question is why not FF..

bobn2 said:

J A C S said:

Michael Fryd said:

For instance, a full frame with a 50mm lens at f/8 will yield the same quality as a 2X crop body with a 25mm lens at f/4. Both will produce visually identical images.

Click to expand...

Is that why landscapes are best shot on m43?

Click to expand...

There are lots of different landscapes. Quite a few landscapers insist on deep DOF (I'm not one of them). If they are hand holding and using an FF camera at f/11 to get the DOF they want, chances are that FF is a waste for them. mFT at f/5.6 or APS-C at f/7.3 would do the same job, unless there was enough light for them to hand-hold at that f-number and have to increase the shutter speed to avoid overexposure at base ISO.

Click to expand...

OK, which m43 camera matches the R5, A7RIV, etc.?

In my case those comments do not apply. I do not consider dof in my choice of apertures, I only consider aperture relative to how light or dark my finished photo appears when viewed.. If I have a target for dof (which is seldom) I will attempt to control that with variables in sensor size, focal length, and distance to subject as dictated by the aperture, ISO and shutter speed required to produce my photo with the acceptable lightness.

Bob A L said:

In my case those comments do not apply. I do not consider dof in my choice of apertures, I only consider aperture relative to how light or dark my finished photo appears when viewed.. If I have a target for dof (which is seldom) I will attempt to control that with variables in sensor size, focal length, and distance to subject as dictated by the aperture, ISO and shutter speed required to produce my photo with the acceptable lightness.

Click to expand...

I presume you are shooting at base ISO, setting the slowest shutter speed that doesn’t cause unwanted motion blur, and then using the aperture to hit an exposure consistent with base ISO.

If you are not shooting at base ISO, then I am unclear as to unclear as to your workflow.

If you don’t care about depth of field, then shoot wide open, use the slowest shutter that doesn’t yield unwanted motion blur, and use Auto-ISO to get a good looking camera-produced JPEG.

Remember, that when it comes to digital, the terms “under exposed” and “over exposed” are often used when the underlying issue is the ISO is set too low or too high.

.

Remember, with digital, if your goal is to get a camera-produced JPEG with good looking lightness, then all you have to do is to turn on Auto-ISO. That will get you to your goal across a wide range of aperture, shutter speeds, and subject lighting.

I don't need auto ISO. I have a good grasp of how each of my cameras handle ISO and no problem choosing what ISO works best in what situation. Auto ISO may be good asset for someone uncomfortable with making that call though. I prefer to control that setting myself so if I shoot more than 1 shot of a scene it assures they all maintain the same lightness.

J A C S said:

bobn2 said:

J A C S said:

Michael Fryd said:

For instance, a full frame with a 50mm lens at f/8 will yield the same quality as a 2X crop body with a 25mm lens at f/4. Both will produce visually identical images.

Click to expand...

Is that why landscapes are best shot on m43?

Click to expand...

There are lots of different landscapes. Quite a few landscapers insist on deep DOF (I'm not one of them). If they are hand holding and using an FF camera at f/11 to get the DOF they want, chances are that FF is a waste for them. mFT at f/5.6 or APS-C at f/7.3 would do the same job, unless there was enough light for them to hand-hold at that f-number and have to increase the shutter speed to avoid overexposure at base ISO.

Click to expand...

OK, which m43 camera matches the R5, A7RIV, etc.?

Click to expand...

'Matches' in what terms?

Bob A L said:

In my case those comments do not apply. I do not consider dof in my choice of apertures, I only consider aperture relative to how light or dark my finished photo appears when viewed.

Click to expand...

That's an approach that suits you, but not one that would suit many photographers, for whom control of DOF is what the aperture setting is all about. And the fact remains, that if you're all concerned about image quality, it's at its best when DOF is the shallowest that your DOF concerns allow. Given that you have no DOF concerns, if you wanted highest image quality, you'd be shooting wide open all the time.

Bob A L said:

I don't need auto ISO. I have a good grasp of how each of my cameras handle ISO and no problem choosing what ISO works best in what situation. Auto ISO may be good asset for someone uncomfortable with making that call though.

Click to expand...

On the contrary. Someone who understands how ISO works knows that it's not the ISO setting per se but the amount of light captured that determines what 'works best', so is seeking always to maximise exposure. If you set ISO before metering the what you're effectively doing is making a guess at what exposure the light will allow and going with that. The meter does it more accurately, so a better way to go about it is to maximise exposure and then set the ISO. You can do it manually if you want, but having teh camera do it automatically is much more convenient.

Bob A L said:

I prefer to control that setting myself so if I shoot more than 1 shot of a scene it assures they all maintain the same lightness.

Click to expand...

Auto ISO shouldn't produce lightness variations any more than any other meter driven control settings. As always, you need to be aware of possible metering issues and compensate as necessary.

chrisfisheye said:

bobn2 said:

J A C S said:

Michael Fryd said:

For instance, a full frame with a 50mm lens at f/8 will yield the same quality as a 2X crop body with a 25mm lens at f/4. Both will produce visually identical images.

Click to expand...

Is that why landscapes are best shot on m43?

Click to expand...

There are lots of different landscapes. Quite a few landscapers insist on deep DOF (I'm not one of them). If they are hand holding and using an FF camera at f/11 to get the DOF they want, chances are that FF is a waste for them

Click to expand...

I am not sure that I would call the new FF Sony 20-70mm a "waste", even if I use it at f/11.

Click to expand...

I said 'FF' in general, not a specific lens. If you're shooting at f/11 lenses are levelled down by diffraction in any case, so whilst you treasured lens might give a tad more resolution then your neighbours trashy kit lens on an APS-C camera, there's not going to be a whole load in it. The same applies to your 60MP sensor.

chrisfisheye said:

Again, the good question is not if one needs FF (in which case you call FF a waste), the good question is why not FF..

Click to expand...

For the reasons discussed earlier, cost, size, weight. I run FF and mFT. Both have their place. The mFT kit allows me to get excellent results in situations where I simply wouldn't have the FF kit with me. On the other hand, since I'm not a deep FF type of person, the FF kit allows me to get some of the results that I want, when the mFT kit wouldn't.

I find in these endless format debates some people on both sides tend to engage in fallacious thinking. The small format people pretend that deep DOF is always better and that no competent photographer would want shallow DOF, whilst the big sensor people seem to think that their FF gear is still giving them a big advantage even when they've stopped it down to a pinhole.

bobn2 said:

J A C S said:

bobn2 said:

J A C S said:

Michael Fryd said:

For instance, a full frame with a 50mm lens at f/8 will yield the same quality as a 2X crop body with a 25mm lens at f/4. Both will produce visually identical images.

Click to expand...

Is that why landscapes are best shot on m43?

Click to expand...

There are lots of different landscapes. Quite a few landscapers insist on deep DOF (I'm not one of them). If they are hand holding and using an FF camera at f/11 to get the DOF they want, chances are that FF is a waste for them. mFT at f/5.6 or APS-C at f/7.3 would do the same job, unless there was enough light for them to hand-hold at that f-number and have to increase the shutter speed to avoid overexposure at base ISO.

Click to expand...

OK, which m43 camera matches the R5, A7RIV, etc.?

Click to expand...

'Matches' in what terms?

Click to expand...

Exactly. So far, you and the others seemed to assume that the criteria relevant to equivalence are the only relevant ones. Even then, equivalence is not quite true when you start digging.

Why didn’t you ask Michael the same question?

J A C S said:

bobn2 said:

J A C S said:

bobn2 said:

J A C S said:

Michael Fryd said:

For instance, a full frame with a 50mm lens at f/8 will yield the same quality as a 2X crop body with a 25mm lens at f/4. Both will produce visually identical images.

Click to expand...

Is that why landscapes are best shot on m43?

Click to expand...

There are lots of different landscapes. Quite a few landscapers insist on deep DOF (I'm not one of them). If they are hand holding and using an FF camera at f/11 to get the DOF they want, chances are that FF is a waste for them. mFT at f/5.6 or APS-C at f/7.3 would do the same job, unless there was enough light for them to hand-hold at that f-number and have to increase the shutter speed to avoid overexposure at base ISO.

Click to expand...

OK, which m43 camera matches the R5, A7RIV, etc.?

Click to expand...

'Matches' in what terms?

Click to expand...

Exactly. So far, you and the others seemed to assume that the criteria relevant to equivalence are the only relevant ones.

Click to expand...

Really? Where did I do that?

J A C S said:

Even then, equivalence is not quite true when you start digging.

Click to expand...

How do you mean it's 'not quite true'? What about it isn't true?

In the end, this isn't a discussion for this forum, you're quite welcome to reopen it on the PS&T forum if you wish, not that it hasn't been done to death there already.

bobn2 said:

J A C S said:

bobn2 said:

J A C S said:

bobn2 said:

J A C S said:

Michael Fryd said:

For instance, a full frame with a 50mm lens at f/8 will yield the same quality as a 2X crop body with a 25mm lens at f/4. Both will produce visually identical images.

Click to expand...

Is that why landscapes are best shot on m43?

Click to expand...

There are lots of different landscapes. Quite a few landscapers insist on deep DOF (I'm not one of them). If they are hand holding and using an FF camera at f/11 to get the DOF they want, chances are that FF is a waste for them. mFT at f/5.6 or APS-C at f/7.3 would do the same job, unless there was enough light for them to hand-hold at that f-number and have to increase the shutter speed to avoid overexposure at base ISO.

Click to expand...

OK, which m43 camera matches the R5, A7RIV, etc.?

Click to expand...

'Matches' in what terms?

Click to expand...

Exactly. So far, you and the others seemed to assume that the criteria relevant to equivalence are the only relevant ones.

Click to expand...

Really? Where did I do that?

Click to expand...

I said you and the others. It is in boldface above now. Your “unless” is an important factor, actually and there is no word about lens selection or, god forbid, resolution.

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

Even then, equivalence is not quite true when you start digging.

Click to expand...

How do you mean it's 'not quite true'? What about it isn't true?

Click to expand...

Vignetting. An f/1.4 lens on FF, for example, would produce shallower DOF at f/2 than an f/1.4 lens on APS-C because it would be faster away from the center. Lower noise, too. This is preserved when you stop down at least a stop on both systems. I have posted examples in the past.

bobn2 said:

In the end, this isn't a discussion for this forum, you're quite welcome to reopen it on the PS&T forum if you wish, not that it hasn't been done to death there already.

Click to expand...

chrisfisheye said:

J A C S said:

Lenses trump bodies, IMO, so I would suggest the R6 if money is a problem.

IBIS would be very helpful in general.

Go FF. This is the best decision I made years ago; I am still thankful to myself for that.

Click to expand...

I went APS-C. I am still blaming myself for that every second of my life

In the long term, FF is the winning strategy. FF can have more or less all the advantages of APS-C.

Click to expand...

If your APS-C camera is a Sony, you can get a couple of FF lenses, ready to jump to a FF camera later.

Don

J A C S said:

bobn2 said:

J A C S said:

bobn2 said:

J A C S said:

bobn2 said:

J A C S said:

Michael Fryd said:

For instance, a full frame with a 50mm lens at f/8 will yield the same quality as a 2X crop body with a 25mm lens at f/4. Both will produce visually identical images.

Click to expand...

Is that why landscapes are best shot on m43?

Click to expand...

There are lots of different landscapes. Quite a few landscapers insist on deep DOF (I'm not one of them). If they are hand holding and using an FF camera at f/11 to get the DOF they want, chances are that FF is a waste for them. mFT at f/5.6 or APS-C at f/7.3 would do the same job, unless there was enough light for them to hand-hold at that f-number and have to increase the shutter speed to avoid overexposure at base ISO.

Click to expand...

OK, which m43 camera matches the R5, A7RIV, etc.?

Click to expand...

'Matches' in what terms?

Click to expand...

Exactly. So far, you and the others seemed to assume that the criteria relevant to equivalence are the only relevant ones.

Click to expand...

Really? Where did I do that?

Click to expand...

I said you and the others.

Click to expand...

So, what you actually meant is 'others'. Why did you rope me into it?

J A C S said:

It is in boldface above now. Your “unless” is an important factor, actually and there is no word about lens selection or, god forbid, resolution.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I put the 'unless' in. So why are you taking exception?

J A C S said:

J A C S said:

J A C S said:

Even then, equivalence is not quite true when you start digging.

Click to expand...

How do you mean it's 'not quite true'? What about it isn't true?

Click to expand...

Vignetting. An f/1.4 lens on FF, for example, would produce shallower DOF at f/2 than an f/1.4 lens on APS-C because it would be faster away from the center.

Click to expand...

I can't see any reason at all why that would be the case. It depends on a whole number of factors which don't depend on sensor size. In fact, a designed for APS-C lens operating in a lens mount sized for FF could easily produce less vignetting than an FF lens with the same aperture size and angle of view. Or, looking specifically at the FE mount, an APS-C lens could produce less vignetting than an FF lens operating in the undersized mount. So, unless you have some hard evidence that this 'vignetting' thing is real, I'd be inclined to dismiss it.

J A C S said:

Lower noise, too.

Click to expand...

Really? How does that happen?

J A C S said:

This is preserved when you stop down at least a stop on both systems. I have posted examples in the past.

Click to expand...

Would you care to link or post again? Maybe taking into account vvvv

J A C S said:

J A C S said:

In the end, this isn't a discussion for this forum, you're quite welcome to reopen it on the PS&T forum if you wish, not that it hasn't been done to death there already.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

bobn2 said:

J A C S said:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

Even then, equivalence is not quite true when you start digging.

Click to expand...

How do you mean it's 'not quite true'? What about it isn't true?

Click to expand...

Vignetting. An f/1.4 lens on FF, for example, would produce shallower DOF at f/2 than an f/1.4 lens on APS-C because it would be faster away from the center.

Click to expand...

I can't see any reason at all why that would be the case. It depends on a whole number of factors which don't depend on sensor size. In fact, a designed for APS-C lens operating in a lens mount sized for FF could easily produce less vignetting than an FF lens with the same aperture size and angle of view.

Click to expand...

But it does not, and of course, we are comparing equivalent images.

bobn2 said:

Or, looking specifically at the FE mount, an APS-C lens could produce less vignetting than an FF lens operating in the undersized mount.

Click to expand...

With what apertures?

bobn2 said:

So, unless you have some hard evidence that this 'vignetting' thing is real, I'd be inclined to dismiss it.

Click to expand...

Did you even read what I wrote? Real life APS-C lenses vignette much more at equivalent fast apertures than real life FF lenses. It is a fact. The visible difference with Fuji is about a stop in DOF.

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

Lower noise, too.

Click to expand...

Really? How does that happen?

Click to expand...

Vignetting is a loss of light, of course.

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

This is preserved when you stop down at least a stop on both systems. I have posted examples in the past.

Click to expand...

Would you care to link or post again? Maybe taking into account

Click to expand...

a better comparison: Canon EOS-1D / 5D / 6D Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

In the end, this isn't a discussion for this forum, you're quite welcome to reopen it on the PS&T forum if you wish, not that it hasn't been done to death there already.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Bob A L said:

I don't need auto ISO. I have a good grasp of how each of my cameras handle ISO and no problem choosing what ISO works best in what situation. Auto ISO may be good asset for someone uncomfortable with making that call though. I prefer to control that setting myself so if I shoot more than 1 shot of a scene it assures they all maintain the same lightness.

Click to expand...

How does having a good grasp of how your cameras handles ISO preclude using Auto-ISO?

Generally people shoot in two situations. Either they can get the maximum exposure their camera can tolerate, or for some reason or another they can't.

If you can get the maximum exposure, then set your camera to base ISO. If you don't care about depth of field, open the lens up to the widest aperture. Set the camera to Aperture priority, and it will pick the shutter speed that gives you the desired exposure. The camera's meter will adjust the Aperture to maintain the same lightness, even if the subject illumination varies.

If you can't set the maximum exposure, then choose the widest aperture that yields sufficient depth of field (if you don't care about depth of field, this would be wide open). Then select the slowest shutter that doesn't yield unwanted motion blur. This guarantees you the highest exposure for your conditions. Auto-ISO will ensure that you maintain the same lightness, even if the subject illumination varies.

J A C S said:

bobn2 said:

J A C S said:

bobn2 said:

J A C S said:

Even then, equivalence is not quite true when you start digging.

Click to expand...

How do you mean it's 'not quite true'? What about it isn't true?

Click to expand...

Vignetting. An f/1.4 lens on FF, for example, would produce shallower DOF at f/2 than an f/1.4 lens on APS-C because it would be faster away from the center.

Click to expand...

I can't see any reason at all why that would be the case. It depends on a whole number of factors which don't depend on sensor size. In fact, a designed for APS-C lens operating in a lens mount sized for FF could easily produce less vignetting than an FF lens with the same aperture size and angle of view.

Click to expand...

But it does not,

Click to expand...

Please provide some evidence that 'it does not'. I don't mean individual cases, I mean something systematic.

J A C S said:

and of course, we are comparing equivalent images.

Click to expand...

Which is why I said 'same aperture size and angle of view'

J A C S said:

J A C S said:

Or, looking specifically at the FE mount, an APS-C lens could produce less vignetting than an FF lens operating in the undersized mount.

Click to expand...

With what apertures?

Click to expand...

Any practicable apertures.

J A C S said:

J A C S said:

So, unless you have some hard evidence that this 'vignetting' thing is real, I'd be inclined to dismiss it.

Click to expand...

Did you even read what I wrote? Real life APS-C lenses vignette much more at equivalent fast apertures than real life FF lenses. It is a fact.

Click to expand...

Yes I did read what you wrote. You declared a thing to be a 'fact' without offering supporting evidence, and you have just done it again.

J A C S said:

The visible difference with Fuji is about a stop in DOF.

Click to expand...

By which you mean just 'a stop', I guess.

J A C S said:

J A C S said:

J A C S said:

Lower noise, too.

Click to expand...

Really? How does that happen?

Click to expand...

Vignetting is a loss of light, of course.

Click to expand...

OK, So we still need to establish that this vignetting thing is a real life phenomenon, not an unsupported 'fact'. Taking a quick look at some lens tests, I'm not seeing it. For instance the Fujifilm 35/1.4 shows -0.9 stops in the corner at f/1.4 according to OL, whilst the Canon 50/1.8 STM shows -1.75 at f/2.2. The Fuji 56/1.2 (non APD) gives -1.7 at f/1.2, the Canon 85/1.8 gives (surprise) -1.7 at f/1.8. Those two example seem to support my contention, not yours.

bobn2 said:

J A C S said:

bobn2 said:

J A C S said:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

Even then, equivalence is not quite true when you start digging.

Click to expand...

How do you mean it's 'not quite true'? What about it isn't true?

Click to expand...

Vignetting. An f/1.4 lens on FF, for example, would produce shallower DOF at f/2 than an f/1.4 lens on APS-C because it would be faster away from the center.

Click to expand...

I can't see any reason at all why that would be the case. It depends on a whole number of factors which don't depend on sensor size. In fact, a designed for APS-C lens operating in a lens mount sized for FF could easily produce less vignetting than an FF lens with the same aperture size and angle of view.

Click to expand...

But it does not,

Click to expand...

Please provide some evidence that 'it does not'. I don't mean individual cases, I mean something systematic.

Click to expand...

Like what you did below? A cherry picked example, not even what I meant, with cooked data?

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

and of course, we are comparing equivalent images.

Click to expand...

Which is why I said 'same aperture size and angle of view'

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

Or, looking specifically at the FE mount, an APS-C lens could produce less vignetting than an FF lens operating in the undersized mount.

Click to expand...

With what apertures?

Click to expand...

Any practicable apertures.

Click to expand...

Read my statement again.

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

So, unless you have some hard evidence that this 'vignetting' thing is real, I'd be inclined to dismiss it.

Click to expand...

Did you even read what I wrote? Real life APS-C lenses vignette much more at equivalent fast apertures than real life FF lenses. It is a fact.

Click to expand...

Yes I did read what you wrote. You declared a thing to be a 'fact' without offering supporting evidence, and you have just done it again.

Click to expand...

Facts can be such without supporting evidence.

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

The visible difference with Fuji is about a stop in DOF.

Click to expand...

By which you mean just 'a stop', I guess.

Click to expand...

By which I mean a stop over what equivalence predict. As in the examples I provided which allegedly I did not.

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

Lower noise, too.

Click to expand...

Really? How does that happen?

Click to expand...

Vignetting is a loss of light, of course.

Click to expand...

OK, So we still need to establish that this vignetting thing is a real life phenomenon, not an unsupported 'fact'. Taking a quick look at some lens tests, I'm not seeing it. For instance the Fujifilm 35/1.4 shows -0.9 stops in the corner at f/1.4 according to OL, whilst the Canon 50/1.8 STM shows -1.75 at f/2.2.

Click to expand...

That look was too quick. You cannot say with a straight face that you have found an f/1.4 lens, aside maybe from some cinema ones, which has -0.9 stop vignetting wide open. I have studied many such lenses, in RAW, to know that this is fantasy. Lenstip tells you why - Fuji corrects the jpegs even when it says than it does not. They measure -1.74, which is pretty respectful, BTW. Now, the Canon 50/1.8 is not f/1.4 (did you read my statement?) and it is junk. The Canon RF 50/1.2 (sorry, Canon does not make decent 50/1.4) vignettes -2.2 at f/1.2. I can measure it at f/2 or f/2.2, if you insist. The Sigma 50/1.4 art has very low vignetting, probably better than the Canon at f/2. It will beat the Fuji easily by a stop.

bobn2 said:

The Fuji 56/1.2 (non APD) gives -1.7 at f/1.2, the Canon 85/1.8 gives (surprise) -1.7 at f/1.8. Those two example seem to support my contention, not yours.

Click to expand...

You should really read my statement. This lens should be compared to the RF 85/1.2 at f/1.8, which I have not measured, BTW.

Now, all those numbers mean nothing if they do not match the photos. The link I provided shows much deeper DOF with the Fuji than what equivalence predicts. The difference seems more pronounced to me away from the center. Whatever the reason, equivalence does not quite work here.

J A C S said:

bobn2 said:

J A C S said:

bobn2 said:

J A C S said:

bobn2 said:

J A C S said:

Even then, equivalence is not quite true when you start digging.

Click to expand...

How do you mean it's 'not quite true'? What about it isn't true?

Click to expand...

Vignetting. An f/1.4 lens on FF, for example, would produce shallower DOF at f/2 than an f/1.4 lens on APS-C because it would be faster away from the center.

Click to expand...

I can't see any reason at all why that would be the case. It depends on a whole number of factors which don't depend on sensor size. In fact, a designed for APS-C lens operating in a lens mount sized for FF could easily produce less vignetting than an FF lens with the same aperture size and angle of view.

Click to expand...

But it does not,

Click to expand...

Please provide some evidence that 'it does not'. I don't mean individual cases, I mean something systematic.

Click to expand...

Like what you did below? A cherry picked example, not even what I meant, with cooked data?

Click to expand...

That's kinda like this type of discussion always goes. Someone offers a wild proposition, with no evidence or reasoning to support it, then if someone offers any evidence inconsistent with their beliefs it's dismissed as 'cherry picked' (it wasn't BTW, just the first I found) and to have cooked data, and still offers no evidence to support their contention. You're more than welcome to present anything that supports what you say. Until and unless you do I have it down as purely speculative.

bobn2 said:

Bob A L said:

In my case those comments do not apply. I do not consider dof in my choice of apertures, I only consider aperture relative to how light or dark my finished photo appears when viewed.

Click to expand...

That's an approach that suits you, but not one that would suit many photographers, for whom control of DOF is what the aperture setting is all about. And the fact remains, that if you're all concerned about image quality, it's at its best when DOF is the shallowest that your DOF concerns allow. Given that you have no DOF concerns, if you wanted highest image quality, you'd be shooting wide open all the time.

Click to expand...

We probably have very different cameras. With mine, image quality is seldom best when dof is shallowest, more often than not being best when dof is the deepest. And I don't think I ever owned a camera or lens that provided the best image quality when used with lens wide open.

And note that I did not say that I have no DOF concerns, just that I do not let DOF dictate my aperture settings over the lightness or darkness of my photos. If I ever have reason to be concerned with DOF, it is because I have concern that I might not have enough DOF.