- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Messages
- 18,743
- Reaction score
- 8,047
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic US
- Website
- www.lewlortonphoto.com
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
The entire thread - tldr
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Summary:The entire thread - tldr
Because that's what the word compare means. Duuuuh. An analogy: Let's compare the suitability of two different woods; poplar and cherry. Let's use the cherry to make a musical instrument -- a wooden flute, and the poplar to make a kitchen cutting board. And now we compare the suitability of the woods. Can you see where we went wrong?
You still don't get it do you? You're saying y=x but in your proof you're specifying that the condition y=x must be met to be a valid comparison. I'm not making kitchen boards out of sugared cherries but explaining the flaws in your theory because you seem hell bent on linking smaller sensors to greater dof when all the evidence says it is the smaller effective aperture diameters that create greater dof, the smaller sensors do not always have greater dof.
Of course dof calculators account for sensor size!!!
c is directly defined by dividing the finished print size by the sensor size, that's how you calculate c! But please note that the smaller the sensor then the less dof for any given COC, by your very own maths as you've presented???
the circle of confusion is in my head.
i am the walrus.
coo coo ka-choo.
just out of curiosity, (and since i have been totally lost since math was introduced into the conversation) is there any usefulness to DOF from the hyper-focal distance to infinity? is that an area where I am likely to look at in a photo?
Yes, the math requires an accommodation for sensor size. That's all I ever really said: "Don't forget the size of the recording media. All else held equal to take the same photo with cameras of different sensor size, there will be a DOF difference due to sensor size." You can't do the math and calculate DOF without including the size of the sensor and so sensor size is a factor in determining DOF. When used to take the same photo the smaller format camera will produce deeper DOF.
This fact that the smaller sensor camera produces deeper DOF when used to take the same photo is appropriate as a general rule. And this is what matters to photographers. Photographers take photographs and if they're comparing cameras they want to know how they'll perform when used for the same application.
"All else held equal to take the same photo with cameras of different sensor size, there will be a DOF difference due to sensor size."
Ok, so for the folks that are arguing the EXTREMELY FINE points here, just stop and ask yourselves, do you honestly think any of this is any way really useful or even understandable to the average photographer in the field? If you really believe that, can you post a simple, one paragraph explanation of why without using any charts, graphs or equations?
Ok, so for the folks that are arguing the EXTREMELY FINE points here, just stop and ask yourselves, do you honestly think any of this is any way really useful or even understandable to the average photographer in the field? If you really believe that, can you post a simple, one paragraph explanation of why without using any charts, graphs or equations?
See above.
Ok, so you want me to follow through all this high end math and you can't even differentiate between 1 paragraph and 6?
Do I need 47 pages of charts and graphs to realize this?
Ok, so you want me to follow through all this high end math and you can't even differentiate between 1 paragraph and 6?
Hmmm...
Do I need 47 pages of charts and graphs to realize this?
Differentiate between 5 pages and 47?
As to your general comment, no I do not know how many actually understand it. We may have gone a little deep in places for a beginners forum but there were a lot of basics in there. And though we will check the boring bits you don't wish to see I don't think it fair to criticise us and over-dramatise what was a healthy discussion that may actually persuade some photographers to learn a little more from other sources.
The space is here, people ask questions and are willing to read, why should there be censure about what they can and can't read if we stay on topic and are civil?
We'll stop now and go back to making comments about popcorn.
Yes, the math requires an accommodation for sensor size. That's all I ever really said: "Don't forget the size of the recording media. All else held equal to take the same photo with cameras of different sensor size, there will be a DOF difference due to sensor size." You can't do the math and calculate DOF without including the size of the sensor and so sensor size is a factor in determining DOF. When used to take the same photo the smaller format camera will produce deeper DOF.
This fact that the smaller sensor camera produces deeper DOF when used to take the same photo is appropriate as a general rule. And this is what matters to photographers. Photographers take photographs and if they're comparing cameras they want to know how they'll perform when used for the same application.
And I'm saying that there are too many examples where this is not true for it to be held as a general rule. The rule that dof is proportional to sensor size only really works of the same photo example (same fov, same subject distance and same f-stop) and only holds valid at portrait distances.