Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


iq and sensor size

Attention!

This topic is locked.

Reason : subject of complaints


24 May 2013 2:20PM

Quote:As long as the size of a teacup on two A4 images is the same and lens aperture was say 5.6 - DOF will be almost exactly the same too


I'm afraid that's not the case. Take a picture of a teacup with a full frame camera from, say, 5 feet away. Then take the same picture with a camera with a 1.6 crop factor (eg a Canon 7D). In order to get the same framing, ie for the teacup to appear the same size on the two images, you will need to be 8 feet away (1.6 x 5). The depth of field will be different - see here

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

24 May 2013 2:39PM

Quote:...
And what is your estimate of DOF for FF camera with 35mm lens focused at 5m , f2.8 cropped 1.4x?



epz edit - insult removed

Like I said:

The DoF of the Nikon D800/35mm lens/f2.8/5m distance is 3.9m. (FF)
The DoF of the Canon 7D/35mm lens/f2.8/5m distance is 2.29m (1.6 crop factor approx)
The DoF of the Sony A77/35mm lens/f2.8/5m distance is 2.42m (1.5 crop factor approx)
The DoF of the Canon 1d/35mm lens/f2.8/5m distance is 2.83m (1.3 crop factor approx)

So the DoF of a 1.4 crop camera would be between the last two cameras - it would be about 2.7m.
strawman e2
11 22.0k 16 United Kingdom
24 May 2013 8:04PM
I just remembered why I stopped taking part in these threads. People may have correct or incorrect views and opinions and it can be explored in a reasoned debate but there is no need for the personalised attacks, especially from someone who has a poor grasp of technical issues and has been wrong so many times before.
I used to take the time to try and debate the issue but it looks to be of no value.

Photography has technical and artistic content. There is no harm in debating and exploring any of those aspects and each will take their own point of enough is enough. But why can it not be done with respect.

For the record I think having cameras with different properties adds to the experience. And many artists take what is called a technical flaw or limitation and use it in their art. How about enjoying the differences and not having a go at people.

Farewell again, off to the real world. Life calls.
24 May 2013 8:15PM

Quote: All that happens in between (sensors, films, etc.) has absolutely no relevance to final image DOF - it is defined by a lens aperture alone and the size of final image.

There is a limit to how many times you can be told and choose not to check the facts with a reliable source that you are wrong with the first part of your statement and wrong with the second part of your statement; without being perceived in a very negative way.
Paul Morgan e2
13 16.1k 6 England
24 May 2013 8:18PM

Quote:Photography has technical and artistic content. There is no harm in debating and exploring any of those aspects and each will take their own point of enough is enough. But why can it not be done with respect


Nicely put John Smile

Its time people got past the stage that bigger is always better, what really matters is what is best for you.

I`m happy using M4/3, after all this is pretty much what 35mm lenses were designed for Smile
24 May 2013 10:34PM

Quote:I just remembered why I stopped taking part in these threads. People may have correct or incorrect views and opinions and it can be explored in a reasoned debate but there is no need for the personalised attacks, especially from someone who has a poor grasp of technical issues and has been wrong so many times before.
....


You just had me to join the club.Sad
lobsterboy e2
11 14.3k 13 United Kingdom
24 May 2013 10:43PM

Quote: it can be explored in a reasoned debate but there is no need for the personalised attacks,


Exactly there is absolutely no need for such behaviour, ideally people would report such behaviour straight away so us moderators get a chance to nip it in the bud.
Any more personal attacks will result in immediate expulsion from the site.
StrayCat e2
10 15.5k 2 Canada
24 May 2013 10:45PM
It was obvious from the start where this thread was going.
25 May 2013 8:46AM

Quote:I just remembered why I stopped taking part in these threads. People may have correct or incorrect views and opinions and it can be explored in a reasoned debate but there is no need for the personalised attacks, especially from someone who has a poor grasp of technical issues and has been wrong so many times before.



Moderator: do I detect I slight element of hypocrisy in strawman's post? He says there is no need for "personalised attacks" and then accuses me of having a "poor grasp of technical issues blah blah". I find this far more insulting than the very mild rebuke I posted. It's far more insulting than calling someone a "buffoon". Or maybe I misunderstand the forum rules.

Maybe strawman can remind me of where I have "been wrong so many times before". If he can justify that statement then it's fair comment. Otherwise it's abuse. Disagreeing with some of strawman's more eccentric opinions does not necessarily constitute being "wrong".
lobsterboy e2
11 14.3k 13 United Kingdom
25 May 2013 9:23AM
I did not single out the actions of any single individual, the comment was directed at everyone on the thread.
Debate the issue without resorting to attacking the individual holding them and everything will be fine.
25 May 2013 11:32AM

Quote:
You just had me to join the club.Sad



Before you sign off, Mr Melb, maybe you could explain how it is that the 1.4 crop camera has a DoF of 3.9m, while the 1.5 crop and 1.3 cameras (in the example I gave above) have a DoF of 2.4m and 2.8m respectively. Is there some kind of anomaly that I'm not aware of with 1.4 crop cameras?

Strawman, I've looked back at a few of our old discussions. I think the main disagreement was about diffraction. Do you still hold to the statement that there's no point in APS-C cameras having more than 12Mp because diffraction is the limiting factor in their resolution? It doesn't look like many of the manufacturers agree - or the DPR reviews. Oh, of course, it's just cynical marketing.
25 May 2013 12:25PM
Here you will find all the explanations you need. I would not put it any better. This time I will abstain of any conclusions for (inter)personal reasons.
25 May 2013 1:28PM

Quote:Here you will find all the explanations you need. I would not put it any better. This time I will abstain of any conclusions for (inter)personal reasons.


I'll take that as an admission that you're wrong.

Next time, when someone tries to explain something to you, don't accuse them of "illiteracy". Some people have a short fuse.
25 May 2013 2:57PM

Quote:Here you will find all the explanations you need. I would not put it any better. This time I will abstain of any conclusions for (inter)personal reasons.

I'll take that as an admission that you're wrong.

Next time, when someone tries to explain something to you, don't accuse them of "illiteracy". Some people have a short fuse.


I suggest that after having warnings from moderators you stop trying to provoke a conflict. I did not make any confessions to you and not going to. I did not ask for your explanations to start with. As for the matter of the discussion - a lot of confusion was caused by similar, but different matters of depth of field and depth of focus. Alas, even in theory there's is a lot of misreading for each of them. I suggest we stop here. Take it as you wish.
saltireblue e2
4 4.3k 26 Norway
25 May 2013 3:40PM
This thread has degenerated into a 'handbags at 5 paces' affair and has been ruined for sensible debate.
Complaint and counter-complaint have been made - they will be dealt with off-forum.
Meanwhile this thread is closed.