Originally posted by ricardobeat I know you won't agree, but technically and practically the difference in DOF is not that significant.
I think it's significant, but it does not seem to me nearly as significant as the difference in depth of field going from a fixed-lens camera like my old Canon PowerShot S3 IS to an APS-C digital SLR.
[Added a few minutes later] Actually I think the depth of field ratio on my K10D is just about perfect, in other words, the difference between aps-c and full frame (or 35mm film) is an advantage of the aps-c. It's absurd to think that less depth of field is absolutely and always better, for example, that it would be even better than full frame to have, say, only 3 inches of depth of field at 75mm and f/5.6.
Quote: Actually I don't quite get it yet, but using any of the available DOF calculators online, they tell me the DOF for a given focal lenght, aperture and subject distance is smaller/shorter in APS-C than for 35mm (?). Anyone care to explain? I thought DOF was shorter for larger formats.
You're comparing depth of field for the two formats at the same focal length. But if you adjust the focal length so that your comparing effective field of view, you'll see that the depth of field for film or full-frame dslr is smaller. In other words, compare what you get with a Pentax K10D at 50mm with what you'd get on a 35mm film camera at 75mm camera.
Will
Last edited by WMBP; 02-18-2008 at 07:34 AM.