Comments on: Justifying 15 Lies about Photography

By: charlie-London wedding photographer

charlie-London wedding photographer — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 14:47:05 +0000

Wow! That was some article. This subject of DoF, I have tossed around quite a few times and not come up with a full answer. It’s good to get some more info on that. Practically speaking it doesn,t seem to make that much difference but it has made me want to experiment .

By: Miserere

Miserere — Thu, 20 May 2010 16:26:33 +0000

Greg, I don't think I'm stretching it at all. You quoted a bit of what I wrote, but right after that I said: there is no such thing as the best camera—there is only the best camera for you. Do you shoot a Canon 5D or a Nikon D700 or D3(x)? I can assure you none of those FF cameras are better than the Samsung NX10 I'm currently using for my street photography. Now, I wouldn't go shoot a wedding with the Samsung NX10. And that's my point, you need to find a camera that fits your needs, and the answer isn't always "Full-Frame", because there's more to a camera than its sensor. And yes, by this logic a P&S or a disposable camera might be better than a large DSLR for some people. In fact, it is better for many people, which is why P&Ss sales outnumber DSLR sales by quite a large margin. PS: Regarding the superior dynamic range of FF sensors vs APS-C, please compare the Pentax K-x to to the Sony A900 or Nikon D700 at DXO Mark, you'll find the K-x has slightly higher dynamic range than either of the FF cameras. Of course, the FF cameras beat it at high ISO due to simple Physics (a sensor 2.25x larger gathers 2.25x more light), but someone who shoots no higher than ISO 400 probably won't care, don't you think?

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 20 May 2010 09:13:09 +0000

‘Full-frame DSLRs are better than APS-C DSLRs – For what? Under what circumstances? At what cost?’

Mate, you are stretching it up here. FX is better for all circumstances as it has less noise, better ISO and DR performance and will basically impose fewer limitation to realise what you want to do under all circumstances. The differences might be miniscule (I can always stick a landscape shot with a DX on a tripod) but FX is my ‘out of jail card’ when using a wedding with no lighting help.

Actually, following your logic we must say that DSLRs are not better than PSs or Kodak disposable. LOL

Value for money is another issue though.

By: Miserere

Miserere — Sat, 16 May 2009 15:25:01 +0000

Thanks for pointing this out. I’m going to try to find out what equations are being used for these calculations as there are exact equations, and approximate ones. Certainly, at portrait distances the difference is very small, but I do want the article to be precise!

By: SC

SC — Fri, 15 May 2009 12:40:33 +0000

Miserere, unfortunately, what you are saying is technically not correct. Let’s use your numbers at DOF calculator: 50mm, 10m, f/2.8 – DOF is 4.48m; 100mm, 20m, f/2.8 – DOF is 4.33m. There is a difference technically, but agreed, it is small. Now, keep everything same, but change distances from 10m/20m to 30m/60m: difference in DOF is from 66m to 43m – much more appreciable. You DO get less DOF with 100mm lens.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:59:26 +0000

“I have made 18×24″ prints from a 6MP camera. They looked great. But mostly I’ve made 8×10″ prints from that same 6MP camera, and of course, they still look great. And it was a P&S; with files from a 6MP DSLR they would look even better.”

I regularly exhibit 5ft wide prints (43×62) with 10 MP and its pinsharp. I don’t know where people get this idea that you need more megapixels to print big.

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 01:25:20 +0000

Agreed. However, if I may add, while depth of field is a function of f-number, the degree of background blur far from the subject varies with the physical size of the aperture–thus, a 400 f/4 will have a more blurred background than a 50 f/4, while the depth of field is the same.

I think this is the major source of the myth, because photographers see the extremely blurred backgrounds from a 300 or 400 f/2.8, for example, or even a 85 f/1.8, and claim that this increase in blur compared to a normal or wide-angle lens of comparable aperture is a reduction in “depth of field.”

By: Macro photography

Macro photography — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:19:47 +0000

Very well written. This is the kind of information that is useful to those want to increase their SERP’s. Keep up the good work.

By: Charles

Charles — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 03:15:54 +0000

“You can fix it later in Photoshop”
It’s kinda amusing that you start off admitting that you *can* fix many errors in PS… There are lots of things you need to get right when you press the shutter: framing, exposure, figure/ground separation, etc. But when you click that shutter your work is only half-done. Just like film photographers need to learn how to print their work properly, so digital photographers need to learn how to use Photoshop (or Lightroom, or Aperture, or whatever RAW developer they prefer), and that includes learning how to fix things.

“Long focal length lenses have a shallower depth of field”
This seems to be a favourite among the geekier members of photo forums. Unfortunately it’s a result of looking too hard at the numbers and forgetting what they mean. DoF is all about the *appearance* of sharpness, and a DoF of 0.23m *appears* larger relative to the perspective when the subject is only 1m away than it does when the subject is 8m away. The numbers are useful only when you need to do hard calculations, i.e. you have a subject that’s 0.2m deep and you need to make sure that you get all of it in focus for your shot.

On an APS-C camera with a 50mm at f/16 and the subject 1m away, 90% of the foreground distance will fall outside the DoF. With a 400mm at f/16 and the subject 8m away, 98.6% of the foreground distance will fall outside the DoF. If you have out-of-focus foreground in your shot that difference will be noticeable and significant.

By: Miserere

Miserere — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 01:16:46 +0000

Of course I’m qualifying it with if you keep the subject size the same. If you’re going to take a particular photo, you will choose the focal length that gives you the framing you want. If that lens is 50mm from 10m away, it will be 100mm from 20m away. Thinking that you will get less DoF when you shoot with the 100mm lens is incorrect.