I have just read http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-ma g.shtml where again the lecture on DSLRs having greater DOF rears its head. Unless I am severely mistaken this is absolute hogwash!
"One other subtle benefit is the greater depth of field. To frame a head and shoulders portrait for example, a DSLR use will have to stand further away than a 35mm user with the exact same focal length lens. Subject distance determines DOF, for any given focal length and Circle of Confusion so it follows that the DOF will be greater by roughly 50%." Then he says: "This is crucial. Depth of Field is an illusion based on minimum sized Circles of Confusion and is related to the enlargement factor of the final print..." Which I do agree with. What he misses is that on a DSLR you will have to magnify more to get the same print size. In other words, the extra DOF only exists at the capture size which is smaller. I also don't see the point of his big shpeel where he gets all anal about the term 'focal length multiplier' - saying it doesn't exist. Perhaps we should call it 'extra enlargement required multiplier' so that he doesn't get upset and can understand it. He doesn't seem to acknowledge that this is required. I am not impressed! Rant over, please someone explain to me if I am wrong, but I don't see why DOF for the same shot with the same framing should be any different.
