Country Parson
Top Veteran
- Location
- North Carolina
- Name
- Dan
Ditto!
This is why I think the theory that (to give one example), a 25mm f.14 m4/3 is the same as a 50mm f2.8 full-frame in terms of angle-of-view and depth-of-field is an over-simplification. That is, the depth-of-field bit is an over-simplification, not the angle-of-view.
I've done some comparisons to illustrate it for myself, and lens "character" issues aside, I don't think it's an oversimplification. It holds up pretty well for me. Here are a couple such examples:
https://www.photographerslounge.org/f42/canon-lenses-full-frame-vs-crop-162/
https://www.photographerslounge.org...s-zd-25mm-f-2-8-vs-canon-ef-50mm-f-1-4-a-161/
I'm off to find a brick wall. Far more productive........ Gordon
Depth of field and perspective
The EF 85mm f/1.8 USM lens is effectively a 136mm f/1.8 lens in
terms of angle of view when attached to the EOS 30D. Looking
at these specs, it would seem possible to take a photograph with
a shallower depth of field than if the EF 135mm f/2L USM were
used with 35mm film, but this is not the case. Since the focal
length does not actually change, the depth of field in terms of
the sensors and the blurred image in the out-of-focus area
remain the same for the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM. And if the image
is enlarged to the size of an A3 print (approx. 11 x 14 inches),
the amount of enlargement required by the EOS 30D is greater
than that for 35mm film size, because its screen size is smaller.
Nevertheless the depth of field on the print will be shallower for
the latter combination, creating greater blur in the background.
This means that if you want to achieve more blur in the
background using the EOS 30D, you will have to shoot at a
larger aperture. Furthermore, perspective is related to angle of
view, so even if the focal length is different for each particular
lens, if the resulting angle is the same due to the difference in
image size, as in the photographs shown above, the perspective
will remain unchanged, too.
Thanks for backing me up.
The EF 85mm f/1.8 USM lens is effectively a 136mm f/1.8 lens in
terms of angle of view when attached to the EOS 30D. Looking
at these specs, it would seem possible to take a photograph with
a shallower depth of field than if the EF 135mm f/2L USM were
used with 35mm film, but this is not the case. Since the focal
length does not actually change, the depth of field in terms of
the sensors and the blurred image in the out-of-focus area
remain the same for the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM.
sorry for wasting everyone's time and bandwidth. Certainly won't be doing it again. I'm off to find a brick wall. Far more productive........
Gordon
luckypenguin said:25mm f.14 m4/3
Well I agree atleast on your this advice .. here!Gordon .. You and I both know you have it right here, but it is never possible to convince everyone.
This is what I gonna do now!I had to walk away.
I hadn't seen that lens yet, Nic, but it's a fantastic reason to pick m4/3 over APS ... what's the DoF like wide open?
I've done some comparisons to illustrate it for myself, and lens "character" issues aside, I don't think it's an oversimplification. It holds up pretty well for me. Here are a couple such examples:
https://www.photographerslounge.org/f42/canon-lenses-full-frame-vs-crop-162/
https://www.photographerslounge.org...s-zd-25mm-f-2-8-vs-canon-ef-50mm-f-1-4-a-161/
Yesterday I was at the Apple Store, and one of the workers there was trying to explain to me, in the most patronizing way possible, why the new 2560x1440 27" display actually gives you more screen real estate than the old 2560x1600 30" display. It was because the pixel pitch was smaller, she said, that I could view more of a spreadsheet on the smaller display. I spent about 5 minutes trying to explain to her where she had it wrong, and then I had to walk away.
Note that I described it as an over-simplification, not as being incorrect.
.
.
Even though I used the example earlier of 25mm m4/3 and 50mm full-frame, I also think the m4/3 vs full-frame comparison is quite a stretch based on price alone, and that the true comparison is between m/3 and APS-C format cameras just as the thread title was asking.
I also think the m4/3 vs full-frame comparison is quite a stretch based on price alone, and that the true comparison is between m/3 and APS-C format cameras just as the thread title was asking.