Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera 
Thread started 05 Nov 2015 (Thursday) 22:06
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

APS-C vs FF Depth of Field - Solved!

 
n1as
Goldmember
2,330 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Salem, OR
     
Nov 05, 2015 22:06 |  #1

So does a full frame camera produce shallower depth of field or not? I think we all know it does, or does it?

I shot the same scene with a 5D-III / 135L and 7D-II / 85. They give the same actual field of view within about 1%.

Both at ISO 200, 1/100, f/2.5. As you can see the full frame camera gave noticeably shallower depth of field.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


- Keith
http://darwinphoto.zen​folio.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
n1as
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,330 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Salem, OR
     
Nov 05, 2015 22:08 |  #2

Then I shot the scene with the 85mm lens on each body and cropped the 5D image in Lightroom to match the 7D image.

Well how about that. Different bodies, same lens, same depth of field.

So it appears that it is really the lens after all that makes the difference.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


- Keith
http://darwinphoto.zen​folio.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,202 posts
Gallery: 31 photos
Likes: 1360
Joined Dec 2006
     
Nov 05, 2015 22:38 |  #3

You are treading old ground, and going In the wrong direction. The advantage a full frame camera has in producing shallow depth of field is caused by the standing closer to achieve the same framing as a crop camera.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kawi_200
Goldmember
1,410 posts
Likes: 28
Joined Jul 2011
Location: Stanwood, WA
     
Nov 05, 2015 22:59 |  #4

This perfectly proves the point that the 1.6x crop factor "gives you more reach" is complete BS. Like saying that 250mm on crop is the same as 400mm on FF. It may frame the same, but it is not the same. Just like in this example 85mm = 85mm = 85mm, it doesn't matter the camera it is on.


5D4 or 6D2..... Waiting to find out which I buy | 8-15L |24-70mm f/4L IS | 24L II | 40mm pancake | 100L IS | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mk2 | 400mm f/4 DO IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,416 posts
Gallery: 211 photos
Best ofs: 11
Likes: 4080
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Chula Vista, CA
     
Nov 05, 2015 23:08 |  #5

gonzogolf wrote in post #17773928 (external link)
You are treading old ground, and going In the wrong direction. The advantage a full frame camera has in producing shallow depth of field is caused by the standing closer to achieve the same framing as a crop camera.

This. ^

Bear in mind too that longer focal length lenses have more abrupt sharpness falloff from in focus to out of focus. So even when the DOF is the same in a calculator (as it likely would be for your first test) the OOF areas are going to exhibit more blur and a more abrupt transition.


VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
9,068 posts
Gallery: 414 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 19295
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Nov 05, 2015 23:15 |  #6

I suppose it has been more than 120 years since depth of field was first figured out. Today it still confuses people. And I'm sure this will continue indefinitely into the future.

The standard rules of thumb for DOF work fine. It can be fun to do experiments to really see the effects. But the results are not news.


Sony RX10 IV, Canon 7D2, Canon 90D, assorted Canon lenses
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,780 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2562
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 3 years ago by Wilt. (2 edits in all)
     
Nov 05, 2015 23:27 |  #7

If we stand 101' from the subject and we photograph with 500mm lens on APS-C and 800mm lens on FF...we frame an area of 3' x 4.5' with both cameras, and...


  1. 500mm f/5.6 gives us DOF zone of 2.16' on APS-C
  2. 800mm f/5.6 gives us DOF zone of 1.34' on FF
  3. 800mm f/9 gives us DOF zone of 2.16' on FF


Then if we compare the degree of background blur both close behind the subject (e.g. 1m away) and far behind the subject (e.g. 1000m away)

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/POTN%202013%20Post%20Mar1/blur%20500%20800_zpsj5odr5li.jpg

So one must use a proportionally longer FL (1.6X longer), and also use a proportionally smaller aperture (1/1.6X, or f/9 on 800mm in the example)
and then the results are indeed similar in DOF and also in degree of far field blur.

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elrey2375
Thinks it's irresponsible
Avatar
4,992 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 275
Joined Nov 2011
     
Nov 06, 2015 00:20 as a reply to  @ kawi_200's post |  #8

He cropped the FF image...


http://emjfotografi.co​m/ (external link)
http://500px.com/EMJFo​tografi (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
n1as
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,330 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Salem, OR
     
Nov 06, 2015 00:22 |  #9

Well the root question I was trying to answer is how does crop factor affect DoF in the focal length limited scenario. Stand in the same place, shoot with the same lens, crop the FF image because the lens is too short. Does FF still give less DoF. The answer is "no".

I am thinking the DoF advantage of FF diminishes as you crop and is gone once you crop the FF image by a factor of 1.6 as I did in my 2nd example.


- Keith
http://darwinphoto.zen​folio.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
n1as
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,330 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Salem, OR
     
Nov 06, 2015 00:29 |  #10

gonzogolf wrote in post #17773928 (external link)
You are treading old ground, and going In the wrong direction. The advantage a full frame camera has in producing shallow depth of field is caused by the standing closer to achieve the same framing as a crop camera.

Well, I am not going in the wrong direction but am exploring a corner case; a special case.

And if you stand closer you have changed perspective and all bets are off. Meaningful conclusions about DoF are nullified in that scenario.

The FF advantage is due to being able to use a longer lens thus reducing DoF and increasing background blur while capturing the same perspective.


- Keith
http://darwinphoto.zen​folio.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
9,068 posts
Gallery: 414 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 19295
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Nov 06, 2015 00:42 |  #11

n1as wrote in post #17773980 (external link)
Well the root question I was trying to answer is how does crop factor affect DoF in the focal length limited scenario. Stand in the same place, shoot with the same lens, crop the FF image because the lens is too short. Does FF still give less DoF. The answer is "no".

I am thinking the DoF advantage of FF diminishes as you crop and is gone once you crop the FF image by a factor of 1.6 as I did in my 2nd example.

Certainly cropping a FF image is equivalent to using a crop frame. That's why they are called crop cameras.

Sometimes less DOF is an advantage, but I think most of the time MORE DOF is an advantage. Of course it depends on the objectives. But I tend to think in terms of a crop frame DOF advantage. :-)


Sony RX10 IV, Canon 7D2, Canon 90D, assorted Canon lenses
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
9,068 posts
Gallery: 414 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 19295
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Nov 06, 2015 00:59 |  #12

n1as wrote in post #17773985 (external link)
Well, I am not going in the wrong direction but am exploring a corner case; a special case.

And if you stand closer you have changed perspective and all bets are off. Meaningful conclusions about DoF are nullified in that scenario.

The FF advantage is due to being able to use a longer lens thus reducing DoF and increasing background blur while capturing the same perspective.

If your objective is to have more background blur, then FF is your friend. FF has shallower inherent DOF, plus there are more wide aperture EF lenses available than EF-S lenses.

There is a useful rule of thumb that is worth noting, but which boggles the minds of many. The rule is that for equivalent framing, the DOF depends only on format (MF or FF or crop, etc) and aperture. Check it out. (Don't forget, though - equivalent framing!!)

The other thing useful to note is that longer lenses, even though they give the same DOF as wider lenses (with equivalent framing), give a more pleasing bokeh because of the perspective change.

As I said, after all these years, DOF still befuddles people.


Sony RX10 IV, Canon 7D2, Canon 90D, assorted Canon lenses
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,583 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 3771
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Bowie, MD
     
Nov 06, 2015 01:02 |  #13

gonzogolf wrote in post #17773928 (external link)
You are treading old ground, and going In the wrong direction. The advantage a full frame camera has in producing shallow depth of field is caused by the standing closer to achieve the same framing as a crop camera.

This.

kawi_200 wrote in post #17773945 (external link)
This perfectly proves the point that the 1.6x crop factor "gives you more reach" is complete BS. Like saying that 250mm on crop is the same as 400mm on FF. It may frame the same, but it is not the same. Just like in this example 85mm = 85mm = 85mm, it doesn't matter the camera it is on.

It still gives you more pixels on target with most cameras. Now that camera's like the 5DS and a7Rii are around it's less of an advantage, but those cameras also don't give you the same type of performance that a pro grade APS-C DSLR like the 7Dii would give you, thus the APS-C camera giving you "more reach" is still true and relevant imo.


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-H1 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)www.LucasGPhoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,520 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 593
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
Post edited over 3 years ago by JeffreyG.
     
Nov 06, 2015 05:26 |  #14

n1as wrote in post #17773980 (external link)
Well the root question I was trying to answer is how does crop factor affect DoF in the focal length limited scenario. Stand in the same place, shoot with the same lens, crop the FF image because the lens is too short. Does FF still give less DoF. The answer is "no".

I am thinking the DoF advantage of FF diminishes as you crop and is gone once you crop the FF image by a factor of 1.6 as I did in my 2nd example.

Once you crop the FF image to use a sensor that is exactly the same size as the 1.6X format you are comparing it to, the camera isn't (functionally) a FF camera any more. Put another way....a FF camera doesn't make a shallower DOF image just because there is a FF sensor in there someplace. You have to use the entire FF sensor and you have to fill that sensor with the same field of view by using a longer focal length lens (as compared to the 1.6X format body) and then you see the difference.

You just compared a 1.6X format camera to a 1.6X format camera and discovered that they make the same image. Don't slap yourself in the forehead too hard with this eureka moment.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,000 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1615
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Nov 06, 2015 05:31 |  #15

Depth of Field under the SPECIFIED VIEWING CONDITIONS of any photographic image is actually only dependent on TWO factors. The first is the Absolute Reproduction Ratio, which is the ratio of the size of the subject (at the focused distance) in real life, to the size of the subject in the final image (usually specified as a print). The second dependency is to the absolute effective diameter of the aperture. The effective aperture diameter is the size the aperture appears to be from the sensor side of the lens. The important thing to remember is that we are using the actual physical diameter, not the f/number. In both cases, reproduction ratio, and aperture they are actually inversely proportional. So as both the reproduction ratio, and the aperture diameter get smaller, the DoF will get larger.

It is also important to remember that the specified viewing conditions are very important, probably more so than either of the two variable proportionalities. So changing the viewing conditions is likely to have a far more profound effect on DoF than changing either the reproduction ratio, or the aperture diameter. Also of note is the fact that all of the things that are usually considered when calculating the DoF, such as Sensor size, focal length, focal distance f/number etc, are just convenient ways of pre-defining the reproduction ratio, and aperture diameter, based on the equipment that is in current use.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,231 views & 8 likes for this thread
APS-C vs FF Depth of Field - Solved!
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is csbokeh21
1567 guests, 309 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.