Depth of field: Full-frame lens vs. APS-C lens, both on APS-C sensor

[Braineack]

"How exactly is a rainbow made? How exactly does the sunset? How exactly does the posi-trac rear end on a Plymouth work? It just does!"
Joe Dirts dad

how do you even?

 

[shefjr]

"How exactly is a rainbow made? How exactly does the sunset? How exactly does the posi-trac rear end on a Plymouth work? It just does!"
Joe Dirts dad

how do you even?

Did I get the quote wrong?
I was just trying to add a little levity to an otherwise at times contentious thread and thought it was a fitting response to the "how do magnets work?"

 

[Vince.1551]

I think it's about time we start a TPF University [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Braineack]

Did I get the quote wrong?
I was just trying to add a little levity to an otherwise at times contentious thread and thought it was a fitting response to the "how do magnets work?"

no, I was asking, how do you even?

saying "I can't even" is very popular amongst us cool kids today

 

[shefjr]

Did I get the quote wrong?
I was just trying to add a little levity to an otherwise at times contentious thread and thought it was a fitting response to the "how do magnets work?"

no, I was asking, how do you even?

saying "I can't even" is very popular amongst us cool kids today

Damn it! I'm not cool anymore! When did that happen? Maybe I never was. Noooooo!

 

[astroNikon]

geez .. I ran out of popcorn .. had to get more

 

[Ysarex]

I sit a pretty constant distance from my computer screen. Guess where I look at almost all photos?

And guess who brought up final print size as an issue? So then it's not a big issue and you were just blowing smoke.

I think you place excessive faith in these things, but I am ok with just leaving it as a disagreement.

"Excessive faith?" Hmmm, 40 years a full-time photographer and 100s of thousands of photos later and I thought I was seeing consistent science. I'm going to be OK continuing to think that.

I don't carry around a calculator when I take photos and wouldn't suggest it as useful practice, but I do understand how DOF functions and I make decisions when taking photos of how I intend DOF to render in a photo. By understanding it and having previously worked through the math I make more effective decisions with predictable outcomes. The calculators and the math are useful in helping us understand -- informed practice then leads to more effective manipulation. That's what the calculators are for. We don't dismiss using them and dismiss refining our understanding as a fools game because they're ungainly in the field or only approximate in application.

Got to admit those first 100 thousand photos I was still on shaky ground, but since then I'm in the grove.

Took this photo earlier this summer. I consciously controlled the DOF when I took the photo and I got the results I expected. I know what people are seeing as in and out of focus in this photo and I planed that before I clicked the shutter. I didn't use a calculator in the field. I did all the math in advance over the past 40 years and informed my practice so that now I can produce predictable results.

Joe

ETA: the various calculators and formulae do indeed work well to ensure that stuff we want to be in focus is in fact sufficiently sharp. Because they are fairly conservative. What they are less useful for, and largely nobody cares, is telling us what's out of focus

They don't really tell us DOF. They give us a moderately strong and useful lower bound.

 

[photoguy99]

Goodness. What a lot of photos you have taken. You must be the greatest.

Your snotty remark about who brought up final print shows that you're not paying attention to what I'm saying. In this modern world the 'final print size' isn't even fixed. Since we mainly look at photos on monitors of various sizes shapes and pitches and at various viewing distances, DOF is more variable than ever.

 

[Ysarex]

Goodness. What a lot of photos you have taken. You must be the greatest.

Your snotty remark about who brought up final print shows that you're not paying attention to what I'm saying. In this modern world the 'final print size' isn't even fixed. Since we mainly look at photos on monitors of various sizes shapes and pitches and at various viewing distances, DOF is more variable than ever.

Not clear enough there; I didn't take them all personally, but I was responsible for evaluating them all and instructing on their production in detail including DOF rendition so I have a legitimate claim of directorial participation and the number is accurate.

And I think my snotty remark indicates I'm paying very good attention.

Joe

 

[photoguy99]

Let the record show that I tried to be polite here. I really did.