[audiobomber]

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

[Rondec]

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?

[BrianR]

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)

[Not a Number]

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

[alamo5000]

Up to 11 or 12 already

[Parallax]

Kudos, Alamo. That's the best version of that yet!

[alamo5000]

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.

[BrianR]

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.

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.

[Ratcheteer]

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

[Rondec]

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.

[Mikesul]

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.

[Class A]

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

[Rondec]

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.

[CypherOz]

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::

[BrianR]

Illustrated here: New To Photography:Full Frame vs APS-C/DX crop factor w/example - AusPhotography:: Australia's Premier Photography Forum::

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