Armanius
Bring Jack back!
- Location
- Houston, Texas
- Name
- Jack
Just finished reading the thread. And the entire discussion was above my pay grade! Other than the croc and shark question!! 
-
Cameraderie, a friendly photography forum, join now for free!
Which one produces shallower depth of field.....
- Thread starter TraamisVOS
- Start date
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
I'm still processing the implications of the academic discussions in this thread.
Because the consensus is that a smaller sensor (APS-C) will yield shallower depth of field than a full frame sensor with the same lens.
That means if it was possible to attach a regular 50mm lens on to a tiny compact camera sensor, the depth of field must be shallower than ... than .. something.
Because the consensus is that a smaller sensor (APS-C) will yield shallower depth of field than a full frame sensor with the same lens.
That means if it was possible to attach a regular 50mm lens on to a tiny compact camera sensor, the depth of field must be shallower than ... than .. something.
yes, if you take a Pentax Q and get an adapter to make your 50/1.4 lens fit on it, it'd have a very long equivalent focal length (somewhere between 200 and 250mm, if memory serves me right), so all the blur would be enlarged, giving a very shallow apparent DOF.
But as wt21 already said, it really does make more sense to just get a lens that gives you a field of view that you're comfortable with, and just use that on your body of choice - unless this particular lens has so much value to you that you'd choose a body (and sensor size) to match the lens.
Finally, you could simulate the shallow apparent DOF from the smaller sensored cameras by cropping the output of the larger sensored camera while keeping the print size the same. Obviously it doesn't work the other way around (simulating the large sensor's output from a small camera), since you can't invent data that wasn't recorded because it was outside of the sensor area.
But as wt21 already said, it really does make more sense to just get a lens that gives you a field of view that you're comfortable with, and just use that on your body of choice - unless this particular lens has so much value to you that you'd choose a body (and sensor size) to match the lens.
Finally, you could simulate the shallow apparent DOF from the smaller sensored cameras by cropping the output of the larger sensored camera while keeping the print size the same. Obviously it doesn't work the other way around (simulating the large sensor's output from a small camera), since you can't invent data that wasn't recorded because it was outside of the sensor area.
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
But if that's the case, why can't a camera with a small sensor like the LX7 produce the equivalent shallow depth of field even though they're equipped with an equivalent purpose-designed lens to simulate FF field of views?
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
ahhh you know what, I don't think I'm ready to go there yet. I shall ponder upon this another day.
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
So if I placed a 35mm lens on an APS-C sensor to get an equivalent 50mm, it'll still have less DoF than a FF sensor with an actual 50mm lens?
As I said earlier, DOF is a function of subject distance, focal length equivalent and physical aperture opening.
The LX7 has a lens that, at full tele, has a focal length of 17.7mm and an aperture of f/2.3. It's true that it has a somewhat longer equivalent focal length (90mm) than the 50/1.4 on either full frame or APS-C bodies. However, the physical aperture opening is only 17.7 / 2.3 = 7.69mm, instead of the >35mm physical aperture opening of the 50/1.4 lens; that's a huge difference. As I said earlier, it's not the f-number that counts; f-numbers are useful for calculating exposure, but in and of themselves, they tell you nothing about DOF.
[edit] yes, what you say in your latest post is correct, provided the 35mm lens doesn't have a full stop faster lens (for instance, a 35/1.0 lens would have a ~35mm physical aperture opening just like the 50/1.4 lens, and since the field of view is the same too, they'd have the same DOF).
The LX7 has a lens that, at full tele, has a focal length of 17.7mm and an aperture of f/2.3. It's true that it has a somewhat longer equivalent focal length (90mm) than the 50/1.4 on either full frame or APS-C bodies. However, the physical aperture opening is only 17.7 / 2.3 = 7.69mm, instead of the >35mm physical aperture opening of the 50/1.4 lens; that's a huge difference. As I said earlier, it's not the f-number that counts; f-numbers are useful for calculating exposure, but in and of themselves, they tell you nothing about DOF.
[edit] yes, what you say in your latest post is correct, provided the 35mm lens doesn't have a full stop faster lens (for instance, a 35/1.0 lens would have a ~35mm physical aperture opening just like the 50/1.4 lens, and since the field of view is the same too, they'd have the same DOF).
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
I'm going to have to process this further.
My neighbour has an OM-D and he bought an SLR Magic lens that gives it a 50mm equivalent. At f/0.95 the shallow depth of field was really shallow and really beautiful.
My neighbour has an OM-D and he bought an SLR Magic lens that gives it a 50mm equivalent. At f/0.95 the shallow depth of field was really shallow and really beautiful.
50mm equivalent on m43 means the actual focal length is 25mm, and since it's f/0.95, the physical aperture size must be 26.3mm. That's indeed large enough to get very shallow DOF, even though it's not quite as large an aperture as the 50/1.4. So if you mount the 50/1.4 on a FF body, the field of view will be the same, but the larger aperture will still give the FF body/lens combo shallower depth of field.
Regarding how beautiful / creamy / harsh the bokeh is, that depends on the design of the aperture blades and the lens, not on the amount of DOF / bokeh, but I'm sure it was very nice to look at indeed
Regarding how beautiful / creamy / harsh the bokeh is, that depends on the design of the aperture blades and the lens, not on the amount of DOF / bokeh, but I'm sure it was very nice to look at indeed
