[Rondec]

The point, I suppose is that if you have an 85mm f1.4 and you stand in one spot and take a photo of a person on a full frame camera and then you switch to your APS-C camera and stand in the same spot you will actually have less depth of field. You also will only have the right eye, nose and chin of the subject in the APS-C photo while it will be a beautiful head shot on the full frame one. What you should do is switch to a 55mm lens on your APS-C camera and then you discover that while the framing is the same, the depth of field is less on full frame for a given aperture. 55mm f1.4 ends up giving similar depth of field to 85mm f2.2.

This probably isn't so much of an issue with longer lenses, but if you want a 35mm f1.4 equivalent lens for your APS-C camera there isn't really anything available.

[clackers]

Well, to those who say you need to keep the field of view consistent, presumably you do that by changing the subject distance, which is a second variable.

*That's* what changed the DoF, not the sensor size. And that's all the video's saying.

[Saltwater Images]

Mildly misleading? I thought you would be leaping and swearing about this trite garbage.

As for me, I just smile and pour myself another glass of Arbelour 25Y.O. I am all too happy to help the ignorant bury their own heads in concrete.

I'll do the same but with Aberlour A'Bunadh unless there's another silly F-Stoppers thread and then I may have to make it 3 fingers of Laphroaig or Talisker

[clackers]

There is a place that teaches basic DSLR usage and PP but the class is like over $3K USD so that is a no go. Same with Hunt's photo classes, they are pricey also.

Yikes!

Yes, SG, fellow photographers and resources out your way will be scarce to be sure, but my dad was a wheat farmer and I grew up in a town of 8000, so I understand the quality of lifestyle you're enjoying these days.

IT work keeps me in a big city, sadly.

[Rondec]

Well, to those who say you need to keep the field of view consistent, presumably you do that by changing the subject distance, which is a second variable.

*That's* what changed the DoF, not the sensor size. And that's all the video's saying.

The difference has to do with the speed of the lenses available for a given format. APS-C doesn't have as fast equivalent lenses available for it as full frame.

The assumption has to be to keep framing the same and if that is the case then either you are backing up or using a shorter focal length with a smaller sensor. The end result is closer to the myth than to the debunking of that myth.

[normhead]

Mildly misleading? I thought you would be leaping and swearing about this trite garbage.

As for me, I just smile and pour myself another glass of Arbelour 25Y.O. I am all too happy to help the ignorant bury their own heads in concrete.

I was restraining myself. You know that urge to just totally lose it but you slap yourself in the face and count to 10?

---------- Post added 06-02-18 at 09:03 AM ----------

The difference has to do with the speed of the lenses available for a given format. APS-C doesn't have as fast equivalent lenses available for it as full frame.

The assumption has to be to keep framing the same and if that is the case then either you are backing up or using a shorter focal length with a smaller sensor. The end result is closer to the myth than to the debunking of that myth.

A logical person sees an effect like this and thinks "what is the best way to explain this?" These guys are just &#!t disturbers. They are looking at the effect and saying "how can we make people who are a little shaky in their understanding of what happens, totally confused?" A step back instead of a step forward. They are actually against helping people understand how to use the information available to them.

Given that this is the second time they've done that.....

[Rondec]

I was restraining myself. You know that urge to just totally lose it but you slap yourself in the face and count to 10?

---------- Post added 06-02-18 at 09:03 AM ----------



A logical person sees an effect like this and thinks "what is the best way to explain this?" These guys are just &#!t disturbers. They are looking at the effect and saying "how can we make people who are a little shaky in their understanding of what happens, totally confused?" A step back instead of a step forward. They are actually against helping people understand how to use the information available to them.

Given that this is the second time they've done that.....

I guess I just think it is a silly exercise. Everyone knows (or should know) that if you get really close to your subject the depth of field decreases. That's why macro photographers do things like photo stacking. The real question though is what happens in practice when you are, say, shooting portraits on a given format. And in practice, full frame has less of depth of field.

(For me this means that I typically have to stop down full frame an extra stop and a piece to get adequate depth of field)...

[normhead]

And in practice, full frame has less of depth of field.

ƒ-stoppers actually structured their article to imply the opposite.

[clackers]

The assumption has to be to keep framing the same and if that is the case then either you are backing up or using a shorter focal length with a smaller sensor. The end result is closer to the myth than to the debunking of that myth.

Again, Rondec, that's changing the subject distance.

So let's cut out the middle man in this 'explanation'.

A full frame camera has a different field of view, nothing else.

A K-5 is a K-1 sensor cut in half, let's not ascribe to it magical properties as full frame fetishists have done for years.

A panorama from an APS-C camera, same distance, aperture, and lens, gives the same picture.

[SSGGeezer]

You might want tto check stuff out in Portland, instead, since it seems like you might be about as far from there as Bangor. They probably have classes at Maine College of Art (?) or maybe The Bakery Collective has something. Back in December 2017 they were still building out their new space, but I am not sure of the status right now. They may have a good community in that area, which though a bit far, might be worth checking out.

Bakery Photo Collective Returns To Portland

Looked at the link and that seems to be the last thing they posted, or very nearly so. I will drive by their space the next time we head down to buy tonic water for SWMBO at Whole Paycheck, er, I mean Foods. I have a Coursera login but there is so much that needs to be done outside while it isn't snowing!

[ZombieArmy]

Well, to those who say you need to keep the field of view consistent, presumably you do that by changing the subject distance, which is a second variable.

*That's* what changed the DoF, not the sensor size. And that's all the video's saying.

Then what the video is saying is pretty useless. You still effectively get thinner DoF for the same FoV; whether or not you can get the same picture through a panorama is irreverent because that isn't practical most of the time.
The big problem with their presentation is instead of making it a lesson about DoF (which would be useful and interesting), they made it about semantics and clickbait.

[RGlasel]

The big problem with their presentation is instead of making it a lesson about DoF (which would be useful and interesting), they made it about semantics and clickbait.

Good point. The marketing major in me wonders about the ROI for a website like F-TroopStoppers that stoops to lame gimmicks to get views, compared to a useful site like Strobist. DPR doesn't need to make money, they just have to keep Amazon amused enough to keep paying the bills, but when I see any kind of infomercial website get desperate for an audience, I wonder how lucrative online advertising really is.

[Fenwoodian]

Then what the video is saying is pretty useless. You still effectively get thinner DoF for the same FoV; whether or not you can get the same picture through a panorama is irreverent because that isn't practical most of the time.
The big problem with their presentation is instead of making it a lesson about DoF (which would be useful and interesting), they made it about semantics and clickbait.

I agree, these last few F Stoppers videos have been pretty useless.

F Stoppers is acting like they've all of a sudden discovered something epic, but every photographer that I know has already known this all along.

[SSGGeezer]

Good point. The marketing major in me wonders about the ROI for a website like F-TroopStoppers that stoops to lame gimmicks to get views, compared to a useful site like Strobist. DPR doesn't need to make money, they just have to keep Amazon amused enough to keep paying the bills, but when I see any kind of infomercial website get desperate for an audience, I wonder how lucrative online advertising really is.

Not as lucrative as it once was I suspect, that is unless you have a bot farm to click through!

[HarisF1]

Again, Rondec, that's changing the subject distance.

So let's cut out the middle man in this 'explanation'.

A full frame camera has a different field of view, nothing else.

A K-5 is a K-1 sensor cut in half, let's not ascribe to it magical properties as full frame fetishists have done for years.

A panorama from an APS-C camera, same distance, aperture, and lens, gives the same picture.

And you've hit the nail on the head. A panoramic image gives an identical image. But taking an image with an equivalent FoV lens, same distance, aperture gives an image which has identical framing and perspective but greater DoF on the smaller sensor.