h_rearden wrote:
^ Exactly. The background is more blurred on the FF shot precisely because the DoF is shallower. The two are inextricably, directly related.
The scenario Mike V described is a logical and optical impossibility.
I disagree. Actually they are not related.
Depth of field relates to the amount of the image in focus i.e. if a point source is bigger than the circle of confusion, then it is considered out of focus. The amount that it is bigger by is not considered in the depth of field.
Think about what is indicated in a depth of field table and how it is calculated.
Depth of field relates to the amount of the image in focus i.e. if a point source is bigger than the circle of confusion, then it is considered out of focus. The amount that it is bigger by is not considered in the depth of field.
Partially. The "permissible circle of confusion" designated by the manufacturer for use in lens and focus system design is itself based on a specific expected magnification to final display.
In the case of Canon cameras, the manufacturer has designated 0.035mm as the "permissible circle of confusion" with an expected magnification to a 6x12 print that will be viewed at 10 inches. This is according to Canon's "Lens Work III" (which is available as a series of PDFs from their Europe website).
The reason you may think the DOF is the same, is that the part of the railing that is in focus is isolated, so you don't see the transition to where it's OOF.
Nick_b wrote:
Yes and no, I think. It's silly to argue that the 5D doesn't have better noise control then a 20D or any crop camera because there are a ton of scientific tests on line that anyone can look at and see that there is a difference BUT and that's a big 'but' how will those scientific test results impact YOUR images?
All of the "scientific tests" show that the 5D and 20D/30D line of sensors have the same pixel-level noise characteristics. Having 12.7 of those MP vs 8.2 in the crop cameras obviously weighs in the 5Ds favor if not-focal length limited and outputting to the same dimensions (ie downsizing noise to mask). Now, here comes the 5D2 with the same pixel pitch as the 20D/30D, and slightly better pixel level noise characteristics. In my experience this translates to ISO3200 images "looking like" 800ISO from my 20D in the final output (a little noiser, so maybe 1 and 2/3 stops better noise). Nice to have, and it makes shooting f2.8 zooms indoors a lot like my experience with primes on the crop.
There must be a planetary convergence or something... because I'm going to more or less agree with brainiac as well this time - with just a small qualification or two.
If you do the sort of photography where the features of the larger sensor make a difference (related to print size, subject, methods of shooting, etc.) then the differences can, indeed, be significant.
Let me be clear that I'm not saying that cropped sensor cameras cannot produce really excellent photographs, nor am I saying that everyone needs to get a FF body - but there are differences and they can be significant. Logically, it is almost impossible to make a credible counter argument.
Dan
dhphoto wrote:
+1
Must be a record, brainiac and I agreeing twice on the same day. Means we must be right.
All the FF cameras I have owned have smoked all the crop cameras for image quality, including the 1.3 crop cameras.
