The DOF "Advantage" from a smaller-sensor camera?

Frodge wrote in post #16730960
I mostly shoot with a wide depth of field. Subject isolation can be overdone in my opinion if every photo one after the other is the same thing. People are always talking about "tack sharp iq" and then isolate one single part of the frame by using wide aperture all the time. In certain circumstances it's great, but like every other technique is overcooked all too often.

Amen. My eyes don't see with "bokeh". I don't see why the photos I take can't look the way my eyes and brain appear to see it. I realize that there is a place for selective DoF, but not in every image of every subject. Sometimes, shallow DoF results in nothing more than an out of focus image (or an image where not enough of the subject is properly in focus).

Preeb wrote in post #16731046
Amen. My eyes don't see with "bokeh". I don't see why the photos I take can't look the way my eyes and brain appear to see it. I realize that there is a place for selective DoF, but not in every image of every subject. Sometimes, shallow DoF results in nothing more than an out of focus image (or an image where not enough of the subject is properly in focus).

Yep. When you shoot with shallow depth of field all the time, I feel it is an excuse for poor composition. That's just my thought.

The Dark Knight wrote in post #16731278
My question/ point of contention was that if the ability to use wider apertures and still get a deeper DOF with a smaller-sensor system like Micro 4/3 is really an advantage when you can use a larger sensor system and just stop down the lens, and use the higher ISO capability to compensate.
...I'm just not sure whether getting a deeper DOF at wider apertures is really an "advantage" when you can stop down when using a larger-sensor camera. That was it.

As I posted in #9 of this thread with the A-B-C comparison, equivalent DOF at wider apertures is indeed one benefit derived from the use of the smaller format. Yet once again, we have to acknowledge that practical photography consists of a whole series of compromises that we need to balance skillfully against one another to make our final photo. Let's look at these considerations:

In my post 9 comparison, we have 190mm f/16 vs. 50mm f/5.6 vs. 32mm f/3.5, all with similar areas framed and with similar DOF.

• All three lenses are operating close to their sweet spots about 2EV smaller than their respective max apertures,
  
• all three are nowhere close to the danger of diffraction
  

In the case of larger format, we have an inherent advantage of more advantageously capturing the inherent detail resolution delivered optically by the lens, compounded with the inherent advantage of lower levels of captured-image magnification to produce the final print -- lower delivery loses in the progression from captured image to printed image.

So we are back to the classic photographic truth that 'larger format is inherently better' while 'smaller is more portable and convenient to work with'...back to yet another of the classic compromises in photography.

Dark Knight, you are correct in that there is no such thing as a "DOF advantage". You can almost always take the equivalent image with a larger sensor camera (by increasing ISO proportionally) and that equivalent image will have the exact same noise characteristics (assuming comparable sensor technology).

The advantage of Micro 4/3 is that they can take the equivalent (deep DoF) photo with a smaller package.

GaryD wrote in post #16729863
To frame the same shot, at the same aperture, from the same distance will require a much shorter lens with full frame. If you are after DEEP DOF, FF is the way to go. At the same aperture and focal distance, the shorted lens REQUIRED for full frame will ALWAYS give you MORE DOF than the longer lens on subframe. No advantage at all. What you would see in practice in a hindrance to DEEP DOF with subframe. Your theory is exactly backwards.

I own and shoot both formats. The difference, in real shooting, is non-existent. Play with this if you don't have both formats:
http://www.dofmaster.c​om/dofjs.html

You have it backwards, Gary. For an image framed the same way, a 1.6 crop sensor will provide 1 1/3 more depth of field than a full frame sensor.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #16731343
You have it backwards, Gary. For an image framed the same way, a 1.6 crop sensor will provide 1 1/3 more depth of field than a full frame sensor.

He acknowledged this in reply #13 when it was first pointed out to him. Too late, too much partying, something...

Steve-R wrote in post #16731313
Dark Knight, you are correct in that there is no such thing as a "DOF advantage". You can almost always take the equivalent image with a larger sensor camera (by increasing ISO proportionally) and that equivalent image will have the exact same noise characteristics (assuming comparable sensor technology).

The advantage of Micro 4/3 is that they can take the equivalent (deep DoF) photo with a smaller package.

Thanks, this helps me understand.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16731404
He acknowledged this in reply #13 when it was first pointed out to him. Too late, too much partying, something...

The entire sequence of events was. LP gas rising to $6.70 per gallon. I use about 250 gallons per month this time of year. You do the math. So.... I ordered some firewood. I got 3 cords (think large dump truck/highway salt truck full) delivered. They dropped it in my driveway. I spent a few hours moving it out of the driveway, one piece, one wheel-barrow full at a time. That led to sore back and legs, which led to consumption of an unknown quantity of Dundee Pilsner. Somewhere in the middle of that Pilsner relaxation session, I logged on to POTN. You have read the results.

Moral of the story: Convert to natural gas, ASAP! Oh, and don't drink and post. You're sanity will be questioned.

yikes, and lol...

Steve-R wrote in post #16731313
Dark Knight, you are correct in that there is no such thing as a "DOF advantage". You can almost always take the equivalent image with a larger sensor camera (by increasing ISO proportionally) and that equivalent image will have the exact same noise characteristics (assuming comparable sensor technology).

The advantage of Micro 4/3 is that they can take the equivalent (deep DoF) photo with a smaller package.

The DOF advantages can be very real at times. Whether or not this relates to an "equivalent" image will entirely depend on your circumstances (you're thinking in absolute terms, rather than real-world terms) - you may find that gaining a usable handholding shutter speed with a full frame camera and lens combination requires more than two stops of adjustment (reference the excellent Olympus IBIS) and therefore my full frame image is not going to be as pleasing as the one from my Micro 4/3 camera. Then there are the occasions when I'm using supplementary lighting, I can shoot at a wider aperture with a Micro 4/3 camera without sacrificing depth of field, and therefore save a couple of stops of power on the lights, with less battery drain etc. Whilst that may not be an advantage for you, it is nevertheless a very real advantage to some people. I kept stressing in my article that the advantages apply to the work that I, and similar photographers carry out.

It's very easy to get extremely thin depth of field using a micro 4/3 system, should you want to. There are some very fast tele primes available. I wouldn't use those types of lenses on my full frame system, because they are too soft wide open, the focusing is not as fast or accurate .... and for what I do, it would be nonsensical to undertake environmental portraiture and then obliterate the setting. But others may be different, and you should use whatever you prefer.

This obsession with ultra-thin depth of field is often poorly misunderstood and the technique itself misused, to the point of cringing. The differences in lens performance between the two formats under discussion, and the different settings required, is also overlooked much of the time, as are the differences between lens IS vs IBIS, etc.

Regards
Lindsay Dobson

Welcome to the forum, Lindsay. Generally, it's a civil place for informative discussion.

Lindsay19 wrote in post #16731470
The DOF advantages can be very real at times. Whether or not this relates to an "equivalent" image will entirely depend on your circumstances (you're thinking in absolute terms, rather than real-world terms) - you may find that gaining a usable handholding shutter speed with a full frame camera and lens combination requires more than two stops of adjustment (reference the excellent Olympus IBIS) and therefore my full frame image is not going to be as pleasing as the one from my Micro 4/3 camera. Then there are the occasions when I'm using supplementary lighting, I can shoot at a wider aperture with a Micro 4/3 camera without sacrificing depth of field, and therefore save a couple of stops of power on the lights, with less battery drain etc. Whilst that may not be an advantage for you, it is nevertheless a very real advantage to some people. I kept stressing in my article that the advantages apply to the work that I, and similar photographers carry out.

It's very easy to get extremely thin depth of field using a micro 4/3 system, should you want to. There are some very fast tele primes available. I wouldn't use those types of lenses on my full frame system, because they are too soft wide open, the focusing is not as fast or accurate .... and for what I do, it would be nonsensical to undertake environmental portraiture and then obliterate the setting. But others may be different, and you should use whatever you prefer.

This obsession with ultra-thin depth of field is often poorly misunderstood and the technique itself misused, to the point of cringing. The differences in lens performance between the two formats under discussion, and the different settings required, is also overlooked much of the time, as are the differences between lens IS vs IBIS, etc.

Regards
Lindsay Dobson

Thanks for this explanation, Lindsay. I enjoyed reading through your entries on the Micro 4/3 systems, just needed some extra clarification on the issue of DOF, which I think was helpfully done through your post here and others that have commented.

The Dark Knight wrote in post #16731500
Thanks for this explanation, Lindsay. I enjoyed reading through your entries on the Micro 4/3 systems, just needed some extra clarification on the issue of DOF, which I think was helpfully done through your post here and others that have commented.

You're very welcome. At the end of the day these are not things anyone needs to worry about, although they can provoke interesting discussions. Far more important is to assess one's photographic needs (your preferred subjects) and choose your equipment based on the necessary performance parameters rather than getting too hung up on sensor size or depth of field differences - which may have little real world significance. It's much better to consider available lens choices, autofocus speed, and other features which might be useful to a given individual. Today's modern highly specified cameras all offer excellent image quality, broadly speaking that should be further down the list. I hope that makes sense.

Lindsay19 wrote in post #16731514
You're very welcome. At the end of the day these are not things anyone needs to worry about, although they can provoke interesting discussions. Far more important is to assess one's photographic needs (your preferred subjects) and choose your equipment based on the necessary performance parameters rather than getting too hung up on sensor size or depth of field differences - which may have little real world significance. It's much better to consider available lens choices, autofocus speed, and other features which might be useful to a given individual. Today's modern highly specified cameras all offer excellent image quality, broadly speaking that should be further down the list. I hope that makes sense.

Makes sense, and I agree. I'm glad you somehow found this thread and were able to provide additional illumination on this subject.