Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-24-2015, 04:37 AM - 1 Like   #181
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,644
Cambridge in Colour has an excellent tutorial on DOF.

"Depth of field refers to the range of distance that appears acceptably sharp. It varies depending on camera type, aperture and focusing distance, although print size and viewing distance can also influence our perception of depth of field."

Understanding Depth of Field in Photography

07-24-2015, 05:46 AM   #182
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,435
I print all my photos on the heads of pins, but I have trouble figuring out the depth of field for the resulting images. Not sure if there is an online calculator that can help me with that?
07-24-2015, 05:59 AM   #183
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,413
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I print all my photos on the heads of pins, but I have trouble figuring out the depth of field for the resulting images. Not sure if there is an online calculator that can help me with that?
Right here:

A Flexible Depth of Field Calculator

Many others will let you manually enter a CoC.

(Yes I know you're being flippant, but the point remains that the print size + viewing distance does influence the DoF, or the 'perceived DoF' if that's the way you want to think about it)
07-24-2015, 06:43 AM - 1 Like   #184
Pentaxian
Not a Number's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,081
Maybe we should consider the effect of beer goggles on perceived DoF?

Up to 13 pages now... perhaps I'll contribute something when we hit the foretold 15

07-24-2015, 06:21 PM - 1 Like   #185
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,598
QuoteOriginally posted by Not a Number Quote
Up to 11 or 12 already
07-24-2015, 07:01 PM   #186
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,428
Kudos, Alamo. That's the best version of that yet!
07-24-2015, 07:08 PM   #187
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,598
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
Kudos, Alamo. That's the best version of that yet!

I try.

But more importantly, it's right on topic.

I seriously wish a photography forum would talk about photography every now and then.
07-24-2015, 07:13 PM   #188
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,413
QuoteOriginally posted by alamo5000 Quote
I try.

But more importantly, it's right on topic.

I seriously wish a photography forum would talk about photography every now and then.
I like how both the grass in the background and the horse are in focus.

QuoteOriginally posted by alamo5000 Quote
I seriously wish a photography forum would talk about photography every now and then.
You're in a thread with "depth of field" and "argument" already included in the title. You've come to the wrong place.

07-24-2015, 09:34 PM   #189
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 223
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
You're in a thread with "depth of field" and "argument" already included in the title. You've come to the wrong place.
I love arguments, they make for interesting reading
07-25-2015, 02:53 AM - 1 Like   #190
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,435
The funny thing is that people who are the strongest vocalizers of equivalence are those who are also the strongest proponents of a full frame camera. I can't imagine Class A ever purchasing a Q because of how slow equivalent apertures all of the lenses have. But I have seen some really nice photography in the Q section from people who just decided they wanted a smaller camera and lens and purchased one.

People say over and over that equivalent lenses will be similar sizes, regardless of sensor size, but (a) the goal of photography is not to have lenses that have super-fast apertures and (b) I don't care how slow you make the lenses, you will never have a full frame system that is as small as the Q system.

I think people who buy smaller sensor cameras understand that they are losing high iso ability by choosing a smaller sensor, but maybe they don't care. Maybe the goal of photography is the creation of images that meet a person's vision. If that vision is all about narrow depth of field, full frame may be the only way to go, but there are many other types of photography out there and I find that narrow depth of field is often not my friend.

07-25-2015, 06:02 AM   #191
Loyal Site Supporter
Mikesul's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,571
Right, Rondec. One reason people are so thrilled with their camera phone pictures and with P&S photos is that the depth of field is so deep - everything is sharp and that is what they want.they neither know nor care when they look at their (or our) pictures. I think FF does provide us with some benefits but your photos consistently demonstrate that FF is not necessary for beautiful images. Equivalence is a red herring.
07-26-2015, 12:12 AM - 1 Like   #192
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,063
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The funny thing is that people who are the strongest vocalizers of equivalence are those who are also the strongest proponents of a full frame camera.
I don't know whether this correlation actually exists.

It does make sense for people understanding equivalence and with a desire to make high-quality images to lean towards a full-frame camera. However, that does not imply that everyone who understands equivalence fails to see the motivation for the existence of smaller format systems.

It may be likely, though, that people understanding equivalence won't say things like "APS-C is the best sweet-spot format available". The difference in portability between an FF camera and the Q is huge. The difference between a K-3 and the future Pentax FF will not be large.

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
can't imagine Class A ever purchasing a Q because of how slow equivalent apertures all of the lenses have.
Although I like the build quality of the first Q and respect its design and engineering, I indeed would not consider it as a second camera system for me. The lack of DOF control is one aspect and the other is how taxing the Q sensor is on lenses that were never designed to be adapted on a Q. A corresponding FF camera would have to have 389 MP in order to provide the same magnification effect. Even great, classic lenses from the past are not up to this kind of magnification of lens aberrations.

This is not to say that one cannot take great photos with a Q. One absolutely can. Just like one can take great photos with one's phone. There is no denying, however, that the Q limits the kinds of photos one can take -- and this goes beyond not allowing "shallow DOF' with reasonable subject distances. If the photographer does not care about the kinds of photographs that cannot be taken with a Q then all is good.

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I think people who buy smaller sensor cameras understand that they are losing high iso ability by choosing a smaller sensor, but maybe they don't care.
Surely there are those people.

However, the source of many a equivalence debate are people who claim that they cracked the portable telephoto challenge and macro photography DOF challenges by choosing a tiny sensor system.

I never joined any thread just to bring someone down who is happy about the Q (or similar). I don't recall falconeye, jsherman999 or other equivalence experts do so either. It really seems that the debate typically starts with a false claim that someone intends to correct as a service to the community. This should not be misconstrued as "pushing FF everywhere".

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Maybe the goal of photography is the creation of images that meet a person's vision.
Why the "Maybe"?
Perhaps the "Maybe" is justified because sometimes people just want to snap away to record something, or similar, without a vision in mind?

In any event, great photography does not depend on great gear. Gear is certainly secondary. That does not imply, however, that
  • Every photo can be taken with any piece of gear. Some gear enables certain photos that cannot be taken with inferior gear.
  • Gear discussions should never take place, even on a gear forum. If you keep the photographer constant, better gear has the chance to improve their photography.
  • All gear-related statements are fair go, whether they are nonsense or not. If someone says something that is technically incorrect, it should not be excused by pointing out that "the photographer's vision" is much more important.

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
If that vision is all about narrow depth of field, full frame may be the only way to go, but there are many other types of photography out there and I find that narrow depth of field is often not my friend.
The characterisation of FF as a tool for, and only for "narrow DOF", is wrong. There are many more good reasons for an FF system.

Last edited by Class A; 07-30-2015 at 11:59 PM.
07-26-2015, 02:12 AM   #193
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,435
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
I don't know whether this correlation actually exists.

It does make sense for people understanding equivalence and with a desire to make high-quality images to lean towards a full-frame camera. However, that does not imply that everyone who understands equivalence fails to see the motivation for the existence of smaller format systems.

It may be likely, though, that people understanding equivalence won't say things like "APS-C is the best sweet-spot format available". The difference in portability between an FF camera and the Q is huge. The difference between a K-3 and the future Pentax FF will not be large.


Although I like the build quality of the first Q and respect its design and engineering, I indeed would not consider it as a second camera system for me. The lack of DOF control is one aspect and the other is how taxing the Q sensor is on lenses that were never designed to be adapted on a Q. A corresponding FF camera would have to have 389 MP in order to provide the same magnification effect. Even great, classic lenses from the past are not up to this kind of magnification of lens aberrations.

This is not to say that one cannot take great photos with a Q. One absolutely can. Just like one can take great photos with one's phone. There is no denying, however, that the Q limits the kinds of photos one can take -- and this goes beyond not allowing "shallow DOF' with reasonable subject distances. If the photographer does not care about the kinds of photographs that cannot be taken with a Q then all is good.


Surely there are those people.

However, the source of many a equivalence debate are people who claim that they cracked the portable telephoto challenge and macro photography DOF challenges by choosing a tiny sensor system.

I never joined any thread just to bring someone down who is happy about the Q (or similar). I don't recall falconeye, jsherman99 or other equivalence experts do so either. It really seems that the debate typically starts with a false claim that someone intends to correct as a service to the community. This should not be misconstrued as "pushing FF everywhere".


Why the "Maybe"?
Perhaps the "Maybe" is justified because sometimes people just want to snap away to record something, or similar, without a vision in mind?

In any event, great photography does not depend on great gear. Gear is certainly secondary. That does not imply, however, that
  • Every photo can be taken with any piece of gear. Some gear enables certain photos that cannot be taken with inferior gear.
  • Gear discussions should never take place, even on a gear forum. If you keep the photographer constant, better gear has the chance to improve their photography.
  • All gear-related statements are fair go, whether they are nonsense or not. If someone says something that is technically incorrect, it should not be excused by pointing out that "the photographer's vision" is much more important.


The characterisation of FF as a tool for, and only for "narrow DOF", is wrong. There are many more good reasons for an FF system.
Full frame is not just about shallow depth of field. It is just most easy to see its advantages in those situations. If you shoot at f5.6 on APS-C most of the time, the advantages may not be as easy to see.
07-26-2015, 02:47 AM   #194
Senior Member
CypherOz's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 241
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 matter if done later in post or earlier by a sensor crop).
Illustrated here: New To Photography:Full Frame vs APS-C/DX crop factor w/example - AusPhotography:: Australia's Premier Photography Forum::
07-26-2015, 04:46 AM   #195
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,413
Your link disagrees with falconeye, "Notice that although the field of view changes, the depth of field stays the same..." and this is wrong. I think they're "seeing" what they want to see.

Here's an example where the effect of cropping is more obvious (larger crop and stuff is parallel to the lens axis):

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/169-pentax-full-frame/240468-dof-ffs-aps-...ml#post2553553
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 03:33 AM. | 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