Originally posted by Na Horuk And why are you guys saying DoF on APSC is more shallow? Wasn't a big argument why Pentax needs FF camera that people wanted more shallow DoF that only an FF camera can provide? IF you multiply the aperture by crop factor you would get wider DoF, not more shallow. I really don't get you guys..
Every time this comes up, and I mean
every time, there are misunderstandings when someone tries to make simplified statements like "FF has less DoF than APS-C" or "APS-C has less DoF than FF". These statements are
utterly and completely meaningless without stating the other assumptions involved. When you switch from a FF camera to an APS-C one do you:
-Stay at the same distance?
-Change lenses?
-Keep the framing of your subject the same?
-Change the aperture?
-Print (or view on screen) at the same size and distance?
-Change the visual acuity of the viewer (donning glasses or ingesting beer)?
These are some of the variables that matter when determining DoF, how these change (if at all) will influence which (if any) format ends up producing a photo with more DoF.
This has
nothing to do with equivalence, and more to do with understanding what DoF is and how this fuzzy (haha) concept has been made precise and adopted to something useable (calculators, charts, etc.). It's important* to understand what the DoF tables depend on (which is why I linked to the more robust Cambridge in Colour calc.,
general DoF one here) so you can modify them to suit your specific use or demands.
Please, we've been here before... take a look at the example in the thread I linked to above and the long discussion if you want to rehash it.
*
To clarify, I recognize that it's not going to be important to everyone, you can get along just fine and dandy with a basic understanding of what aperture, focal length, and subject distance do with regards to DoF. Take photo, adjust something to get it more like you want, and repeat. This is a fine way to operate if it's to your liking.