Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-12-2016, 04:18 PM - 1 Like   #91
New Member




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 19
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
So your dismissal of equivalence is that it isn't accurate to three decimal places? Has it occurred to you that the FA 50mm f1.4 has a focal length of 53mm? That the DA 60-250mm is only about 135mm at close focus and maximum range? That an f2.8 lens can have a T-stop of f3.3? Or that f8 is not precisely f8 (f5.6 x 1.4 = 7.84)? That f/1.2 may be used in either a half-stop or a one-third-stop system? You can't see a difference of 400 pixels in 12 million. Your eye can't tell the difference between 1.5x crop or 1.53X crop. Photography is nowhere near as precise as mathematics because it is also subjective.

Have a play with a DOF calculator. It will show that you can equalize DOF between formats, but DOF is not a precise measure, so don't be expecting mathematical precision. A Flexible Depth of Field Calculator
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
it's not that precise.

there is no such thing as a universal calibration standard for lens measurements, so a nikon 50mm lens could easily be a couple of mm longer than a canon 50mm lens... same thing with aperture, it's only whatever arbitrary measurement the manufacturer assigns the lens... it'll generally be pretty close with modern lenses, but nowhere near as precise as you are calculating.

take for example the batis 25mm prime, it's actually a ~22-23mm prime... some people speculate that modern lenses might be wider in order to leave elbow room for in-camera distortion correction.

another example would be the olympus 24/2.8 legacy prime, it's the widest 24mm prime that i've ever put on the a7r, probably by ~2mm or so.
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
You might want to state the assumptions you've used in your DoF calculations (specifically, what's happening to your circle of confusion as you vary formats and the implications this has in a real world print comparison).


Anyway, the 'derivations' that show you'll get the same DoF under some equivalence conditions use simplified equations for DoF. Ones that are pretty true when the subject distance is large enough compared to the focal length. In other words, it's close enough for most people at everyday distances, but not a mathematical gospel.




I think we can ALL agree that it is near impossible to practically compare different camera systems, not to mention prohibitively expensive. They just aren't made to allow us to compare them fairly. We can only do it theoretically.


I have a spreadsheet that performs photography related calculations for me. It also allows me to see some results side-by-side for easy comparison. Originally, it did not include a depth of field calculator, but I eventually added one when I stopped believing that 1. 'A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens', and, 2. 'You get better Bokeh on a 'Full Frame' camera', could both be true at the same time.


Since bokeh is, very simply, the defocused areas, usually in the background, in a photograph, I reasoned that a good way to visualise how defocused the defocused areas are was to know where the focused areas are, and, their depth. All things being equal, the more out of focus something is the more pleasing the bokeh it will create in the picture. So I started looking for Depth of Field calculators.


Everywhere I looked, including the DoF calculator linked above, seems to be trying to give me a subjective answer. I was looking for the truth, not opinions. I looked for the mathematical formulae to create my own calculators in MS Excel, I found many of them on Wikipedia.


For interest, I plugged a few figures into the DoF calculator above, to match my earlier post, 32.753mm lens f1.4 and 4.72m from the subject.
APS-c (1.5 crop) - focus is from 4.18m to 5.43m giving a depth of 1.25m
35mm - focus is from 3.94m to 5.88m giving a depth of 1.95m


These results are saying that DoF is shallower on an APS-c than the 35mm. This would hint at bokeh being better on APS-c than on larger formats, contradicting what we all know to be true. Using the same distance and aperture, for a 50mm lens, the APS-c has narrower DoF. ???


For me rounding to three decimal places seemed to be the natural thing to do to keep things under control. Applying a 1.5 Crop Factor to a FF/50mm lens combo to find the 'Crop Appropriate' lens for an APS-c would leave me in a recurring nightmare.
In metres, three places is rounding to the nearest millimetre.


When I started my depth of field calculations I could not get anything to line up, there were significant errors. I was beginning to think that a 50mm lens was not a 50mm lens. It then dawned on me to use an 'Actual Crop Factor' calculated from the dimensions of the sensor. That changed everything. Suddenly, a 50mm lens was a 50mm lens.


I chose to use a 50mm lens as a standard on a 35mm sensor because that is what it is. All of us who have used 35mm, and, many who haven't, can relate to that combination. The fact that there might be slight differences between lenses, or a lens may not quite match up to its stated focal length, is not important to my calculations. The calculations ignore other factors too like lens design and engineering prowess because these are factors that add to the subjectivity.


I also had to use a standard Circle of Confusion, I used 0.018mm (Typical APS-c value) I could have chosen any value. My reasoning for this was because 1. Circles of Confusion tend to be more lenient towards larger format cameras, 2. Using a different value for different formats would somehow suggest that the lens knows what camera it has been attached to and starts behaving differently, 3. Circle of Confusion relates to how those images are projected to the viewing medium, and then viewed by the viewer, and, is another area that introduces subjectivity.


My DoF calculations were an attempt to find a way to make accurate comparisons without needing to resort to subjective answers.

My example showing the difference in size (px) of the same subject shot from the same distance using different format cameras does not result in a loss of 400px in 12Mp. It is 400px (height) lost from the short side of the picture, roughly the same number of pixels difference between the K-x (12mp) and the K-5 IIs (16Mp), and is approximately 4Mp. I would say that is a large chunk of detail to lose.

01-12-2016, 04:57 PM   #92
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,332
QuoteOriginally posted by AutoGOD Quote
For interest, I plugged a few figures into the DoF calculator above, to match my earlier post, 32.753mm lens f1.4 and 4.72m from the subject.
APS-c (1.5 crop) - focus is from 4.18m to 5.43m giving a depth of 1.25m
35mm - focus is from 3.94m to 5.88m giving a depth of 1.95m


These results are saying that DoF is shallower on an APS-c than the 35mm. This would hint at bokeh being better on APS-c than on larger formats, contradicting what we all know to be true. Using the same distance and aperture, for a 50mm lens, the APS-c has narrower DoF. ???
Yes. Under the assumption that we're printing at the same size, viewing at the same distance, and have the same visual acuity (and your earlier assumptions of same focal length, aperture, and subject distance), that's correct. Note the field of view is different for each photo in this case. Also note that that everything (including the background) is magnified more from real life size to it's size in the print from the APS-C camera (again, assuming the same print size).

"What we all know to be true" is only true under some different conditions, eg. use the same lens and aperture, but move closer with the FF to get the same subject size.

QuoteOriginally posted by AutoGOD Quote
I also had to use a standard Circle of Confusion, I used 0.018mm (Typical APS-c value) I could have chosen any value. My reasoning for this was because 1. Circles of Confusion tend to be more lenient towards larger format cameras, 2. Using a different value for different formats would somehow suggest that the lens knows what camera it has been attached to and starts behaving differently, 3. Circle of Confusion relates to how those images are projected to the viewing medium, and then viewed by the viewer, and, is another area that introduces subjectivity.
No to 2). It's suggesting that we're viewing the images at the same size with the same pair of eyes from the same distance (usually an 8x10, at a distance I forget). These viewing conditions set an acceptable size of a blur disk on the print to be considered 'in-focus' (this is a subjective decision, but generally fairly standard). The CoC then follows and changes with the size of the format.

If you want to change the assumption of same print size, that's fine, but you should always, I repeat, always make it clear that this is what you're doing. This is why your conclusions will look different on the surface to most everyone else's.

Last edited by BrianR; 01-12-2016 at 05:06 PM.
01-12-2016, 04:59 PM   #93
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 604
QuoteOriginally posted by AutoGOD Quote
I think we can ALL agree that it is near impossible to practically compare different camera systems, not to mention prohibitively expensive. They just aren't made to allow us to compare them fairly. We can only do it theoretically.


I have a spreadsheet that performs photography related calculations for me. It also allows me to see some results side-by-side for easy comparison. Originally, it did not include a depth of field calculator, but I eventually added one when I stopped believing that 1. 'A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens', and, 2. 'You get better Bokeh on a 'Full Frame' camera', could both be true at the same time.


Since bokeh is, very simply, the defocused areas, usually in the background, in a photograph, I reasoned that a good way to visualise how defocused the defocused areas are was to know where the focused areas are, and, their depth. All things being equal, the more out of focus something is the more pleasing the bokeh it will create in the picture. So I started looking for Depth of Field calculators.


Everywhere I looked, including the DoF calculator linked above, seems to be trying to give me a subjective answer. I was looking for the truth, not opinions. I looked for the mathematical formulae to create my own calculators in MS Excel, I found many of them on Wikipedia.


For interest, I plugged a few figures into the DoF calculator above, to match my earlier post, 32.753mm lens f1.4 and 4.72m from the subject.
APS-c (1.5 crop) - focus is from 4.18m to 5.43m giving a depth of 1.25m
35mm - focus is from 3.94m to 5.88m giving a depth of 1.95m


These results are saying that DoF is shallower on an APS-c than the 35mm. This would hint at bokeh being better on APS-c than on larger formats, contradicting what we all know to be true. Using the same distance and aperture, for a 50mm lens, the APS-c has narrower DoF. ???


For me rounding to three decimal places seemed to be the natural thing to do to keep things under control. Applying a 1.5 Crop Factor to a FF/50mm lens combo to find the 'Crop Appropriate' lens for an APS-c would leave me in a recurring nightmare.
In metres, three places is rounding to the nearest millimetre.


When I started my depth of field calculations I could not get anything to line up, there were significant errors. I was beginning to think that a 50mm lens was not a 50mm lens. It then dawned on me to use an 'Actual Crop Factor' calculated from the dimensions of the sensor. That changed everything. Suddenly, a 50mm lens was a 50mm lens.


I chose to use a 50mm lens as a standard on a 35mm sensor because that is what it is. All of us who have used 35mm, and, many who haven't, can relate to that combination. The fact that there might be slight differences between lenses, or a lens may not quite match up to its stated focal length, is not important to my calculations. The calculations ignore other factors too like lens design and engineering prowess because these are factors that add to the subjectivity.


I also had to use a standard Circle of Confusion, I used 0.018mm (Typical APS-c value) I could have chosen any value. My reasoning for this was because 1. Circles of Confusion tend to be more lenient towards larger format cameras, 2. Using a different value for different formats would somehow suggest that the lens knows what camera it has been attached to and starts behaving differently, 3. Circle of Confusion relates to how those images are projected to the viewing medium, and then viewed by the viewer, and, is another area that introduces subjectivity.


My DoF calculations were an attempt to find a way to make accurate comparisons without needing to resort to subjective answers.

My example showing the difference in size (px) of the same subject shot from the same distance using different format cameras does not result in a loss of 400px in 12Mp. It is 400px (height) lost from the short side of the picture, roughly the same number of pixels difference between the K-x (12mp) and the K-5 IIs (16Mp), and is approximately 4Mp. I would say that is a large chunk of detail to lose.

DoF is approximated from a print size of 8x10 viewed from a distance of about 1 ft. This is where your circle of confusion cones from. APS-C, being smaller, would require more enlargement when compared to 35mm for the same print size. Thus APS-C will blur more (bokeh) at "equivalent" focal lengths.

You are correct in your confusion
01-12-2016, 06:40 PM   #94
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,801
QuoteOriginally posted by dtmateojr Quote
APS-C, being smaller, would require more enlargement when compared to 35mm for the same print size. Thus APS-C will blur more (bokeh) at "equivalent" focal lengths.

You are correct in your confusion
The DOF calculator is right, you two are lost, and I'm done.

01-12-2016, 07:10 PM   #95
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 36,269
QuoteQuote:
I think we can ALL agree that it is near impossible to practically compare different camera systems, not to mention prohibitively expensive. They just aren't made to allow us to compare them fairly. We can only do it theoretically.
Well, no, that's not the case. A D810 is about the same size sensor as a K-5, of we know that a K-5 image and a D810 image should be approximately the same if you shoot from the same spot at 35mm APS-c and 50mm 36x24.

I've done that and observed that if you make the images the same size you get a lot more DOF on the "APS-c" image. And I've checked this with the a DoF calculator and it said about what I observed. So, you have to enlarge the APS_c image more, the circle of confusion should be bigger, but the lens is a wider FL and therefore will have more DoF. The enlargement of the circles of confusion seems to be no where near enough to make up for the added DoF from using a shorter FL lens. So, yes you can test these things, it just takes a bit of creativity. And if you want to satisfy for yourself what the DoF calculator says, you shouldn't have much problem. Just a bit of time.

If you go a different route and move use the same lens but move the "APS-" camera back, you get more DoF because you are back further and you get the same result.
01-13-2016, 09:20 AM   #96
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,332
Doing your own practical test as Norm has suggested is a good idea. If you're just interested in what happens relatively when you crop, there's nothing magical about the crop from FF to APS-C. You can use your Pentax dslr and crop in post to 1.5, or 2, or whatever you like to get a hands on demo.

There are a few very flexible DoF calculators that let you input arbitrary sensor sizes to easily compare the calculations for your crops, here's a nice windows one VWDOF. The Cambridge in Colour one audiobomber linked to is great, but limited in choices of sensor size (it does have all the standard options and should cover you if you have 2 different formats to compare).

QuoteOriginally posted by AutoGOD Quote
Since bokeh is, very simply, the defocused areas, usually in the background, in a photograph, I reasoned that a good way to visualise how defocused the defocused areas are was to know where the focused areas are, and, their depth. All things being equal, the more out of focus something is the more pleasing the bokeh it will create in the picture. So I started looking for Depth of Field calculators
You might want to investigate background blur on it's own. DoF just gives the cutoff for a given circle of confusion, it doesn't say anything about the rate the blur disks are growing as you move away from your subject, or how large these blur discs will ulitmately get with a distant background.

Here's a nifty calculator, complete with pretty graphs: How much blur? - A visual background blur calculator

It's also worth reading this bit from toothwalker on Depth of field, especially the graph in the section titled "DOF at constant magnification I" and of course the bits about relative and absolute blur in the "Background blur" section. On this site, there's also a derivation of the DoF equations if you're so inclined.

Last edited by BrianR; 01-13-2016 at 09:38 AM.
01-13-2016, 03:07 PM   #97
New Member




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 19
Thank you for the replies and links. I've had a quick look at the toothwalker site and there's loads there to keep me busy.
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!
35mm, 85mm, aps-c, apsc, background, blur, bokeh, camera, close, da35, dof, equivalence, fa31, ff, field, film, frame, iso, k-3, lens, perspective, photography, pm, sensor, sharpness, shot, shutter, subject
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Has aps c caught up to full frame? neostyles Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 27 10-19-2015 05:49 PM
Comparing the image of APS-C to Full Frame. Newtophotos Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 10-01-2015 12:29 PM
Depth of field and focus trouble with manual lens Craig Barber Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 10 07-09-2014 07:18 PM
Is there a way to get full field of view with APS-C camera? kristaps Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 02-04-2014 11:52 PM
Field of View, Full Frame and APS-C compared Ole Pentax Lens Articles 5 04-11-2010 06:27 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:56 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