I have to say that I agree with Antonio and Jens on this one, as I often shoot wide open (f1.7, 2.5 or 2.8, depending on the lens), specifically to decrease the depth of field. Unfortunately, the extra depth of field for me, sucks majorly.
However, I don't feel that you need to be rude to prove your point, Antonio. And I've said that before to you (remember, *I* am the "ugly" one)... On the other hand, you guys are all so pedantic! Why argue over something so trivial? Simply compose your shot, use the DOF preview, if its not enough DOF for you then stop down a bit, if its too much, then open up. Simple, problem solved. I don't need to know all the technical ins and outs of stuff, there is a reason that cameras came out with DOF preview. So long as I get the result that I need, it is irrelevant to me how/why it happened. (Sorry if that offends, I'm just not very technically inclined). See, I KNOW that using the *istD increases DOF, however, we all know that DOF decreases with longer focal lengths. So, if I have a 50mm lens on a film camera, and a 50mm lens on an APS sized sensor, effectively turning it into a 75mm lens, then wouldn't that meant that there would be LESS DOF on the digital camera? For some reason, that is obviously NOT the case, so that's about where my techno attention span ends. I'll just keep shooting and remembering that for some reason, opening up to f4.5 would be like f2.5 (or whatever), if I were shooting film. AND I'll just keep using my DOF preview/lcd screen to make sure that I am happy with the results. btw, Rob, I read like two paragraphs of that page you linked to before it almost put me to sleep! har! sorry, i just hate anything mathematical or requiring too much analysis... Yeah, I know, I'm such a girl! ;-) tan. -----Original Message----- From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 20 July 2004 9:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: DOF and digital cameras Finally someone got it. That is precisely what I was refering to in my earlier posts, 35mm SLR vs APS digital (*istD). I eagerly await afordable full frame digital. A. On 20 Jul 2004, at 00:19, Jens Bladt wrote: > Not true. The difference has absolutely nothing to do with digital or > film. > I se no reason at all why the recording media should have any impact > on DOF. > It's simply because of the format. That's all. So, you could just say: > DOF > is greater for APS cameras (or just smaller formats). Everybody and his > mother knows that! > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 19. juli 2004 23:55 > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Emne: Re: OT: DOF and digital cameras > > > Huh? > I am pretty sure I have a handle on depth of field. > > William Robb > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Antonio Aparicio" > Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] OT: DOF and digital cameras > > >> Primarily for William Robb, but usefull for anyone else grapling > with >> this issue. >> >> "I expected the depth of field in digital cameras to be > significantly >> greater than that in 35 mm models. Everybody and his mother knows > that. >> What I didn't expect, is how large the difference is." >> >> Full article at: >> >> http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/dof/ >> >> > > > >
