Replacing Beginner Lenses

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18362096
I won't assume to know enough about the physics to claim there is no change at all,. (Wilt will set that straight for me later )

Wilt has thought me a great deal of things here too.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18362096
The debate is IMHO, totally overblown for even the most experienced, technical and nuanced photographers. When it "crops up" in a discussion thread started by a newcomer asking about an upgrade from a kit lens, it is in fact bordering on hilarious.

When I was new to photography using 5.6 kit lenses, I read a long thread that also bordered on hilarious about this same subject. I wish I could find it now, but the subject was macro based and when you are at 1:1, the DOF differences become more apparent because you are at such thin DOF anyhow. But I learned a lot from that thread and I am glad that thread back then went into the ridiculousness it did because now I feel I have a better grasp on the subject. Maybe other new photographers reading this thread now will also learn from it.

DOF calculator

There are different aspects of field of view, shooting distance, DOF, and exposure when comparing sensor sizes. These can be more academic since the photographer just needs to worry about composition and exposure with the camera they're using.

How is any of the current discussion remotely relevant to the OPs question?

davesrose wrote in post #18362122
DOF calculator

There are different aspects of field of view, shooting distance, DOF, and exposure when comparing sensor sizes. These can be more academic since the photographer just needs to worry about composition and exposure with the camera they're using.

All nuances of DOF have been known for 100 years. There are several DOF calculators available on the Web where you can calculate DOF, and you can determine DOF to six decimal places. There is no reason at all for anyone to be in the dark about DOF.

By the way, the OP is no longer participating in this thread.

Archibald wrote in post #18362161
There is no reason at all for anyone to be in the dark about DOF.

I linked the DOF calculator because there seemed to be a debate about DOF and sensor size. If we want to get more on the subject, larger apertures not only give shallower DOF, but allow more light in.

davesrose wrote in post #18362169
I linked the DOF calculator because there seemed to be a debate about DOF and sensor size. If we want to get more on the subject, larger apertures not only give shallower DOF, but allow more light in.

Yes, it is a reminder that DOF is easily calculated.

vengence wrote in post #18362160
How is any of the current discussion remotely relevant to the OPs question?

The OP hasn't posted to this thread since message #12. We're way off in the weeds!

Just a normal day on POTN.

I think I'm somewhat responsible for kick starting DOF discussion.

If the OP at least tests a zoom lens that is constant aperture f/2.8 they should see a difference in the overall "look" of the entire photo "walk" session. If a person shoots on the long end of the 15-85mm zoom it'll be at f/5.6. Some serious bokeh would be lost in that situation.

If the OP chimes in and says they do not want to upgrade "replace" a beginners lens they can get a better quality 15-85 variable aperture lens. "Upgrade" in sharpness would be welcoming.

If the OP does not mind variable aperture zooms I'd say just buy a new version 18-135mm Nano commonly a kit lens with the 80D.

Canon unfortunately (ON PURPOSE) will not release a wide angle prime lens equivalent to 24mm f/1.4 for a crop sensor. Not much love for a canon 20mm f/2.8 prime these days. An inexpensive 24mm f/2.8 STM is nice but you might as well buy a reasonably light Canon 17-55 capable of f/2.8 across the board.

A substantial real upgrade that is NOT a lateral move would be purchasing a constant f/2.8 zoom.

mcoren wrote in post #18362223
The OP hasn't posted to this thread since message #12. We're way off in the weeds!

Just a normal day on POTN.

Hasn't posted, bit is still active recently...

Yeah, if I were the OP I wouldn't want to partake in this thread anymore either! "Equivalency" threads on photo forums are just absurd wastes of time.

I don't have much to add. But that won't stop me.

I started out here on POTN with a G12. It has a tiny sensor. One of its attributes is being able to take a photo of a field of daffodils or some other spring flower... and all most all of them will be in focus. It was suggested this was because the smaller sensor had a greater Depth of Field. In other words, instead of trying to blur the background, you could keep more of the background in focus than on a crop or full frame camera.

Comments?

sounds like we are off topic a bit

OP is not going pro, just wants better gear

to recap: sounds like the OP currently is using a dated T4i with a obsolete series 1 kit lens (not stabilized) and a cheapo zoom

congrats on the new job and presumably increased income

why not treat yourself to the latest T7i with a couple of brand new stabilized lenses, the STM is really quiet focusing while shooting videos

Canon EOS Rebel T7i DSLR Camera with 18-55mm and 55-250mm Lenses Kit..... both lenses are STM

on sale for just $999.00 @ B&H (and elsewhere)

https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …qA&is=REG&m=Y&s​ku=1329244

free shipping, no tax, brand new, factory warranty

then sell your current bundle for $? on craigslist/ebay

Phoenixkh wrote in post #18362395
I don't have much to add. But that won't stop me.

I started out here on POTN with a G12. It has a tiny sensor. One of its attributes is being able to take a photo of a field of daffodils or some other spring flower... and all most all of them will be in focus. It was suggested this was because the smaller sensor had a greater Depth of Field.

Correct. For the same framing and aperture, cameras with smaller sensors give greater depth of field.

Yes, this works, but notice that smaller sensor cameras generally have lower max aperture numbers, to avoid diffraction. So you can't stop down to f/16, and thus the degree to which you can get more DOF is limited. The G12 can be stopped down to only f/8.

Archibald wrote in post #18362411
Correct. For the same framing and aperture, cameras with smaller sensors give greater depth of field.

Yes, this works, but notice that smaller sensor cameras generally have lower max aperture numbers, to avoid diffraction. So you can't stop down to f/16, and thus the degree to which you can get more DOF is limited. The G12 can be stopped down to only f/8.

John Baker shared a few photographs demonstrating the depth of field with the G12: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=961797

The photos to which I refer are in the #3 post.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #18362395
I don't have much to add. But that won't stop me.

I started out here on POTN with a G12. It has a tiny sensor. One of its attributes is being able to take a photo of a field of daffodils or some other spring flower... and all most all of them will be in focus. It was suggested this was because the smaller sensor had a greater Depth of Field. In other words, instead of trying to blur the background, you could keep more of the background in focus than on a crop or full frame camera.

Comments?

The G12's DOF results from using a 6.1-30.5mm lens. Mount a 6.1mm lens on a FF camera and you'll get the same DOF. Shorter lenses produce deeper DOF. That is physics/optics at work.