Bifurcator
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.1 #19 · Panasonic GF1 with M or Canon -mount lenses | |
Bifurcator wrote:
According to the math proposed here shouldn't the DOF be pretty close to the same here? Yet the GH1 seems actually to be shallower - much shallower! Now, this doesn't account for the difference in Angle Of View as I'm comparing a 50mm on the GH1 which is the equivalent of 100mm with a 55mm on a FF film camera. Even still there doesn't seem to be very much difference between what I imagine the Nikkor E 100mm f/2.8 would look like on FF compared to the Nikkor 50mm 1.4 examples shown above. Now at focus distances of 4 or 5 meters it might show up a little more. <shrug>
Because of this and similar tests I've done (all at close focusing distances so far [5 meters and less]), I always ignore it when people say that crop sensors aren't as shallow or don't offer as much DOF control. It might be true but you can't prove it by me. 
sebboh wrote:
here is where the confusion comes from: at the same focus distance 4/3 will have a narrower depth of field than the exact same lens at the same focus distance on a FF camera. this is because 4/3 sensor is just showing exactly what the we would see from the lens on FF if we cropped the center and blew it up to the size of the original.
if instead of using the same lens at the same distance you instead want identical framing to compare 4/3 vs FF you will need to put a 100mm on the FF to get the same framing as the a 50mm on 4/3. now you can take the same shot with the same framing from the same distance, it is just the lens focal lengths that are different. in these conditions the dof field will be roughly the same for 50mm on 4/3 at f/1.4 as 100mm on FF at f/2.8.
OK. I believe you and everything but I'm just wondering what those differences are - specifically - in terms of look and feel. I mean, a 100mm f/2.8 is one flat mofolo! The narrowness of DOF from a 100mm at f/2.8 is pretty extreme! Well if it's like the 50mm 1.4 I posted as you say, then you can see it right there I suppose.
I guess, I think, perhaps, that's flat enough to satisfy anyone's artistic proclivities toward "DOF control" - on the narrow end. And if true who cares about the numbers? It delivers. And if that's true it then would be wrong IMO to suggest to users that M4/3 doesn't allow for the same DOF control - for most intents and purposes. At least that's how my logic plays out. As you can see above, it's not completely foundationless. 
4/3 is really only is a serious limitation to dof field control at wide angles in my opinion. a 100mm at f/4 lens on FF or 50mm f/2 on 4/3 can give you a plenty narrow dof at the working distances where one typically wants it. however, your mileage may vary. i know people just can't accomplish what they want without a medium format camera. if you really like the look of the shots on zeiss 35mm f/1.4 thread, forget using 4/3, it's not really possible. if you only use narrow dof for portraits and closeups 4/3 is fine.
I agree about the WA part of that statement. I mean, I don't see many 25mm f/0.7 lenses around - which would be needed to "perfectly" match the 50/1.4 on a FF. (although I have a 12.5mm f/1.2 ) Still, I have to say I don't think I've seen any images on this site that I thought I couldn't duplicate the angle and DOF of - in general. There's a few I can't touch the DR of (without multiple exposures), and quite a few I would need to spend a lot of money to match the length-and-sharpness of... but... So which images are you talking about specifically?
|
