On Apr 6, 2009, at 13:40 , Doug Brewer wrote:
Larry Colen wrote:
Perhaps someone has already done the math, or the experimentation,
and
can just give me the answers.
Scott's pictures of his Nishiki inspired me to shoot some of my
mongrel legnano. I rode it to lunch today, and on the way back to the
office was getting some shots of it with some lupin by the side of
the
trail.
I didn't have quite as much depth of field as I'd like, so I decided
to try zooming way out and then just cropping. Smaller sensor,
shorter
lens, more depth of field. If the equation is linear, I should get
the
same DOF by downresing (downrezzing?) a longer lens over the whole
sensor, as I would using a shorter lens and cropping.
This would also mean that a K20 would have a lot less DOF than my
K100
at the same focal length, assuming that they were blown up large
enough that the sensor resolution became a factor. So, if I'm
willing to trade resolution for depth of field, am I better
off using a wider angle lens and cropping (my intuition says yes), or
do I get the same benefit by just combining pixels (which would also
reduce noise) for a larger circle of confusion?
uh oh...
Right on, mate...
Joseph McAllister
pentax...@mac.com
http://gallery.me.com/jomac
http://web.me.com/jomac/show.me/Blog/Blog.html
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
