Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-22-2015, 06:01 PM   #151
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,201
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
For the question of usefulness: equivalence reduces four parameters (focal length, fstop, iso, sensor size) into three parameters (field of view, aperture, noiselevel)
Nice!

Also, there is not only a reduction in number of parameters, but the three remaining parameters are more closely aligned with that a photographer should really care about:

field of view -> framing
aperture -> DOF
noiselevel -> Image IQ

In contrast, the traditional parameters have a more technical orientation:

focal length -> optical power of the lens (allows inferring framing, if the sensor size is constant)
fstop -> exposure [in combination with shutter speed] (allows inferring noise-level, if the sensor size is kept constant; and DOF if, in addition, focal length is kept constant as well)
iso -> exposure compensation (may indicate level of under- or over-exposure, if the sensor size is kept constant)
sensor size -> influences the photographic relevance of all of the above.


Last edited by Class A; 07-23-2015 at 06:47 AM.
07-22-2015, 06:04 PM   #152
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,622
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Like it is irrelevant if one knows that fstop means focal length divided by aperture diameter?
Yes, essentially.
07-22-2015, 06:42 PM   #153
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,450
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
Actually, the easiest way is for a person to to learn how each of his/her lenses renders on his/her camera(s), regardless of sensor size, and think of "equivalence" as just another word in the dictionary.
We're all assuming the subject and photographer are cemented to spots on the ground. Just move your subject farther from the background and move yourself proportionally farther from the subject (or both closer, as the format may be) and DoF pretty much looks the same.
07-22-2015, 08:43 PM   #154
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
All you need are a few mutant powers

QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
We're all assuming the subject and photographer are cemented to spots on the ground. Just move your subject farther from the background and move yourself proportionally farther from the subject (or both closer, as the format may be) and DoF pretty much looks the same.
If you're willing to achieve a certain DOF at the expense of maintaining a certain perspective.

And if you can hover in the air sometimes. Or change your body matter density so that you can sink into the ground, or move through a wall, or turn invisible so the subject doesn't notice you walked right up to and became part of the scene. (Come to think of it, The Avengers are probably DOF masters with any lens combo! )

07-22-2015, 10:28 PM - 1 Like   #155
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Ponoka Alberta Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 545
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
With wildlife photography you will use the longest/fastest lens that you can afford and wield. End of story. Has nothing to do with equivalence.

As to whether or not you should use a full frame camera, probably not, because you'll probably be cropping your D800 past APS-C levels. Once again, not an equivalence thing, just common sense. If you aren't using the outer one half of your sensor, why pay for it?
I bet you more wildlife photographs just as any other photographers select their lenses based on what FOV DOF and the perspective they are looking to capture. If I selected my lenses on the greatest reach most of my shots would be framed to tight for my liking and would be of no use to me. I bet more photographers buy the best lens to fill the greatest gap for their needs because of the cost of such lenses. How does this pan out for FF shooters ( if their style of photography ) they are not FL limited gives them a greater range with a single lens.

If I am looking at the $7500 300 F2.8 for my aspc I would go FF and go for $7500 get a 400mm F4 to get the best out of that $7500 lens.With the higher pixel counts of the newer FF bodies you are left with greater versatility with that FOV. One could ( with a 36mp) camera use a 1.22 crop and still hold a 24mp image with the FOV 490mm F4.9 lens and that lens would only have to resolve for a pixel no smaller than that found in the K5.

Last edited by Ian Stuart Forsyth; 07-22-2015 at 10:33 PM.
07-22-2015, 11:07 PM   #156
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
We're all assuming the subject and photographer are cemented to spots on the ground. Just move your subject farther from the background and move yourself proportionally farther from the subject (or both closer, as the format may be) and DoF pretty much looks the same.
changing perspective is not equivalence.

claiming that equivalence only entails three parameters is not equivalence either, because it ignores perspective and all the rest of the essential parameters.

this discussion just keeps going downhill
07-22-2015, 11:26 PM   #157
Pentaxian
calsan's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,387
When I really want to know the depth of field in my photo before I take it, I just push the dial around the shutter button clockwise, and I can SEE the DOF in the viewfinder. I don't require a tape measure and pocket calculator.
07-23-2015, 02:55 AM   #158
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,253
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Your question is wrong, of course, but even if you had asked 'is the SNR better at 100 or 400', of course, the answer depends on the amount of cropping and is thus quickly determined by equivalence.

If you don't mind the moose running away while you're taking your shot, you can just haul an extra lens and swap lenses of course.
Really. My understanding would be that you are cropping the same. Is that not the point of equivalence, that you need the same final image? My question was facetious and assumed that I was comparing iso 100 and 400 on the same camera. My point being that your goal when shooting (whatever size sensor, however much you will need to crop) is to use the lowest possible iso while maintaining shutter speed adequate to capture the scene/action before you. And yes, even on the D800, I believe that iso 100 is better than 400 (for resolution, dynamic range and SNR -- just "better) the difference may not be huge, but it is certainly measurable.

---------- Post added 07-23-15 at 06:09 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Ian Stuart Forsyth Quote
I bet you more wildlife photographs just as any other photographers select their lenses based on what FOV DOF and the perspective they are looking to capture. If I selected my lenses on the greatest reach most of my shots would be framed to tight for my liking and would be of no use to me. I bet more photographers buy the best lens to fill the greatest gap for their needs because of the cost of such lenses. How does this pan out for FF shooters ( if their style of photography ) they are not FL limited gives them a greater range with a single lens.

If I am looking at the $7500 300 F2.8 for my aspc I would go FF and go for $7500 get a 400mm F4 to get the best out of that $7500 lens.With the higher pixel counts of the newer FF bodies you are left with greater versatility with that FOV. One could ( with a 36mp) camera use a 1.22 crop and still hold a 24mp image with the FOV 490mm F4.9 lens and that lens would only have to resolve for a pixel no smaller than that found in the K5.
I included the word "afford," because the number of folks who are spending 7500 dollars on a single lens is pretty small. El J's example had to do with capturing a distant moose and he was comparing a 200mm lens with a TC to a 400mm lens. Now, I do find it odd when people throw TCs into the mix, because TCs are such a mixed bag. Equivalence may tell you about framing and depth of field with a lens/TC combination, but it won't tell you about performance -- either auto focus or resolution and most TCs do not perform at the level of a dedicated lens in a given focal length. Putting a 1.5x TC on a 200mm f2.8 lens will not really give you a 300mm f4 lens. If it is a good enough TC, it might be close, but if you can afford it, you should go for the 300mm lens.

I am not a wildlife photographer. My experience in listening in on birders talking is that they always want a little more length, but I wouldn't know from personal experience.

07-23-2015, 04:58 AM - 1 Like   #159
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
The depth of field at the same focal length never changes, regardless of sensor format.
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
It is good that you did not bother to argue because you would have incorrectly opposed to a correct assertion.
I didn't make the comment for Adam's post because I didn't want to disturb a thread this early in evolution. But in essence, Adam made the same incorrect statement now corrected by Class A.

It may first come as a surprise that cropping a photo does indeed change a photo's depth of field (doesn't matter if done later in post or earlier by a sensor crop). BTW, it does change noise at the image level too.

That's the kind of understanding I meant above when I insisted that by now, equivalence is part of useful photography knowledge.

Among others, it helps understanding and planning the effect of cropping or the Brenizer method (which can be thought of to be the opposite of cropping).

---------- Post added 23-07-15 at 13:02 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by calsan Quote
I can SEE the DOF in the viewfinder.
You are aware that what you see is dependend on the viewfinder magnification?
07-23-2015, 05:14 AM - 1 Like   #160
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,561
QuoteOriginally posted by calsan Quote
When I really want to know the depth of field in my photo before I take it, I just push the dial around the shutter button clockwise, and I can SEE the DOF in the viewfinder. I don't require a tape measure and pocket calculator.

I though that was the "make everything go dark" switch.
07-23-2015, 05:24 AM   #161
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,466
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
It may first come as a surprise that cropping a photo does indeed change a photo's depth of field
Doesn't it just alter the viewer's perception of it?
07-23-2015, 05:41 AM   #162
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,561
QuoteOriginally posted by mohb Quote
Doesn't it just alter the viewer's perception of it?
Not by the definition of DoF that I'm used to, but people like to argue the semantics. Consider an 8x12 print that's 2 feet away.

-Crop it to 4x6 using scissors. View it from 2 feet away. DoF hasn't changed.
-View this 4x6 print from 1 ft away. DoF has now changed.
-Crop your photo in photoshop to match the view of this 4x6. Print the resulting file at 8x12 and view from 2 feet away. DoF is now different from the original 8x12.

Here's calculator to play with, crop via selecting the sensor size, hit 'advanced' to access viewing distance and print size controls: A Flexible Depth of Field Calculator

Last edited by BrianR; 07-23-2015 at 05:49 AM.
07-23-2015, 08:15 AM - 2 Likes   #163
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,406
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
Not by the definition of DoF that I'm used to, but people like to argue the semantics. Consider an 8x12 print that's 2 feet away.

-Crop it to 4x6 using scissors. View it from 2 feet away. DoF hasn't changed.
-View this 4x6 print from 1 ft away. DoF has now changed.
-Crop your photo in photoshop to match the view of this 4x6. Print the resulting file at 8x12 and view from 2 feet away. DoF is now different from the original 8x12.
Hmm... No matter how much cropping and chair wheeling I do, a shot like this (apologies for the bad composition) looks the same to this tired old brain and eyeballs. The man behind the coat and sunglasses girl refuses to pop into focus.
07-23-2015, 08:29 AM - 1 Like   #164
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,466
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
Hmm... No matter how much cropping and chair wheeling I do, a shot like this (apologies for the bad composition) looks the same to this tired old brain and eyeballs. The man behind the coat and sunglasses girl refuses to pop into focus.
All that cropping and resizing does is alter the visual signals we use to measure depth, the actual DOF will still remain what t was when the photo was taken.
07-23-2015, 12:37 PM - 1 Like   #165
Pentaxian
Not a Number's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,263
QuoteOriginally posted by alamo5000 Quote
Then we get someone who posts something and it turns into a 15 page thread...
Up to 11 or 12 already
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
24x36mm, 600mm, ability, aps-c, camera, cameras, depth, depth of field?...can, equivalence jihadis, ff, frame, full-frame, image, inch, lens, lines, lot, lots, magnification, pentax, people, picture, pictures, post, sensor, sensors, stop, sunset
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Depth-of-field bracketing -- is there a way to do this? baj Pentax K-5 16 07-04-2015 02:17 PM
Depth of field and focus trouble with manual lens Craig Barber Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 10 07-09-2014 07:18 PM
diffraction vs depth of field for Q hoffo Pentax Q 6 02-07-2014 09:38 PM
K10D and depth of field rimofheaven Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 7 01-04-2010 09:21 PM
portraits and depth of field raz Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 31 06-01-2007 08:35 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:13 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top