lct Posted September 4, 2009 Share #121 Posted September 4, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Aside from closeups, an f/2 lens on a small sensor camera has not enough DoF to isolate subjects from the background/foreground... I meant that small sensor cams have *too much* DoF to isolate subjects sorry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 Hi lct, Take a look here Leica M9 + X1: Fake or real?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
2Bébèrt Posted September 4, 2009 Share #122 Posted September 4, 2009 I meant that small sensor cams have *too much* DoF to isolate subjects sorry. I think the DOF on the new M9 will be about 24% bigger (wider, longer) than that of our precious M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted September 4, 2009 Share #123 Posted September 4, 2009 The 9 is not even matched properly to the M.... Yes, the 9 sounds an alien font. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted September 4, 2009 Share #124 Posted September 4, 2009 I think the DOF on the new M9 will be about 24% bigger (wider, longer) than that of our precious M8. Actually 33% deeper. Eg. dofmaster.com: M9 (FF) and 50mm/f2 at 5 meters give 121cm M8 (1.33 crop) '' 92cm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2Bébèrt Posted September 4, 2009 Share #125 Posted September 4, 2009 Actually 33% deeper. Eg. dofmaster.com: M9 (FF) and 50mm/f2 at 5 meters give 121cm M8 (1.33 crop) '' 92cm I couldn't find the M9 yet and replaced him with the calculations of the Nikon D3, shame on me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
okram Posted September 4, 2009 Share #126 Posted September 4, 2009 You guys need this software: Barnack (win only) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebelfocus Posted September 4, 2009 Share #127 Posted September 4, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Actually 33% deeper. Eg. dofmaster.com: M9 (FF) and 50mm/f2 at 5 meters give 121cm M8 (1.33 crop) '' 92cm I don't mean to nitpick but just want to add... The actual DOF characteristic for a given lens does NOT increase or decrease with sensor size - this is a common myth. A smaller sensor is just cropping what the lens projects, not modifying any of the optical properties. However, with a full-frame sensor compared to a cropped sensor to get roughly the same field of view, you would have to move slightly closer to the subject and thus you end with the the smaller depth of field you get from reducing the lens to subject distance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted September 4, 2009 Share #128 Posted September 4, 2009 DOF is a virtual entity based on an assumed circle of confusion and other factors. Eg for FF CoC is 0.03mm for Leica M8 0.023mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 4, 2009 Share #129 Posted September 4, 2009 ....The actual DOF characteristic for a given lens does NOT increase or decrease with sensor size - this is a common myth.... You seem to make a common error as well. As Nugat said above, DoF is based on the circle of confusion and the size of the latter depends on the size of the sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted September 4, 2009 Share #130 Posted September 4, 2009 The actual DOF characteristic for a given lens does NOT increase or decrease with sensor size - this is a common myth. A smaller sensor is just cropping what the lens projects, not modifying any of the optical properties. Sorry this is not true, the DOF also contains the magnification required to print to a certain standard size. This changes as the sensor size is reduced, thus altering the circle of confusion, and this impacts the DOF. This has been discussed to death and the summary above is what it always boils down to after extensive analysis, disagreement, contention etc. It may be worth checking via the search function. I agree that the lens imaging characteristics as such do not change at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebelfocus Posted September 4, 2009 Share #131 Posted September 4, 2009 Sorry this is not true, the DOF also contains the magnification required to print to a certain standard size. This changes as the sensor size is reduced, thus altering the circle of confusion, and this impacts the DOF. This has been discussed to death and the summary above is what it always boils down to after extensive analysis, disagreement, contention etc. It may be worth checking via the search function. I agree that the lens imaging characteristics as such do not change at all. Sorry if I got this wrong. I did not realise this had been previously discussed here (I'm fairly new to the forum). I based my statement on various internet articles I have read on the subject which are fairly convincing but it sounds like they are not correct. Sounds like I'll have to read up on the subject again to get a deeper understanding. :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted September 4, 2009 Share #132 Posted September 4, 2009 Start here. Understanding Depth of Field in Photography It's arguably the best site to learn the technical side of photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted September 4, 2009 Share #133 Posted September 4, 2009 Sorry if I got this wrong. I did not realise this had been previously discussed here (I'm fairly new to the forum). I based my statement on various internet articles I have read on the subject which are fairly convincing but it sounds like they are not correct. Sounds like I'll have to read up on the subject again to get a deeper understanding. :-) Well done to you, Rebel focus. A smart contributor that wants to learn. Those are the most valuable kind of members. I look forward to reading more from you and learning more with you too. A never ending process for us all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted September 4, 2009 Share #134 Posted September 4, 2009 Sorry if I got this wrong. I did not realise this had been previously discussed here (I'm fairly new to the forum). I based my statement on various internet articles I have read on the subject which are fairly convincing but it sounds like they are not correct. Sounds like I'll have to read up on the subject again to get a deeper understanding. :-) Apart from Cambridge in Colour - Digital Photography Tutorials & Gallery I can wholeheartedly recommend The Luminous Landscape , http://www.reidreviews.com. , Clarkvision.com home , wrotniak.net: Welcome ...to learn about the technical side of photography, but not only. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebelfocus Posted September 4, 2009 Share #135 Posted September 4, 2009 Apart from Cambridge in Colour - Digital Photography Tutorials & Gallery I can wholeheartedly recommendThe Luminous Landscape , http://www.reidreviews.com. , Clarkvision.com home , wrotniak.net: Welcome ...to learn about the technical side of photography, but not only. Thanks for the links - very useful. I also found a fairly useful discussion here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted September 4, 2009 Share #136 Posted September 4, 2009 Sorry if I got this wrong. I did not realise this had been previously discussed here (I'm fairly new to the forum). I based my statement on various internet articles I have read on the subject which are fairly convincing but it sounds like they are not correct. Sounds like I'll have to read up on the subject again to get a deeper understanding. :-) Hi, on rereading my reaction I felt I may have been a bit 'blunt', sorry about that. Anyway as we are listing light reading it seems appropriate to add my own scribblings see: http://spicken59.googlepages.com/DOFresolutionandperspective.pdf http://spicken59.googlepages.com/resolutionandDOF.xls Succes!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2Bébèrt Posted September 4, 2009 Share #137 Posted September 4, 2009 Apart from Cambridge in Colour - Digital Photography Tutorials & Gallery I can wholeheartedly recommendThe Luminous Landscape , http://www.reidreviews.com. , Clarkvision.com home , wrotniak.net: Welcome ...to learn about the technical side of photography, but not only. Indeed some usefull info, pity that there are some links directing to a payed subscription. It seems that many forum members post these links and to me that's not in the spirit of this forum nor to the advertisers who have to pay their banners to get noticed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted September 4, 2009 Share #138 Posted September 4, 2009 I don't think that anybody who knows about Reichmann, Reid et al and their role in the photo community will have anything against directing readers to them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted September 4, 2009 Share #139 Posted September 4, 2009 Last I checked none of the purchasers of banners - actually offered un-biased information such as ReidReviews.? . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 4, 2009 Share #140 Posted September 4, 2009 Darn it, Andy B. I TOLD you there should be a filter automatically deleting any post containing both "DoF" and "M8" Sorry, 2bébèrt, Rebelfocus, et al - not directed at you. But every time the subject comes up we immediately get a 50-post-long discussion that repeats 30 previous threads, and comes to the same conclusions. Reason 31 for buying the M9 - no more loopy discussions of DoF with a cropped sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.