Can the 5D cope with Richo GX100 (P&S) for DOF Image-Quality ?

roli_bark wrote in post #4431125
By "fairer" I mean same shooting conditions. Same shooting conditions are, among other things, same perspective. Same perspective can be achieved only by using a wider-angel lens for the larger sensor camera.

Not true. Same DOF, perspective and framing are accomplished by using a longer focal length and stopping down on the larger format camera. Using a wider angle lens on the larger format camera increases DOF for a given perspective and f-number, but changes framing dramatically. Same shooting conditions to me = framing, perspective, DOF, shutter speed, all of which I preserved in my comparison except for minor technical framing differences due to the 5D body being a few cm taller and a different aspect ratio.

Nick_C wrote in post #4431047
I always assumed it was common knowledge that a P&S at say f/3.2 is more like say f/16 or so on a DSLR, its also true that you should be able to get more DOF with a P&S, but there are so many factors that are bound to make the overall image worse, no P&S in my view will ever come close to the detail of a DSLR with decent lens, also on all the ones ive owned the AF has been very slow & I remember on my Powershot Pro1 seeing the yellow LED flashing meaning no focus lock was a consistent sight.

I agree with all of that. All my test shows is that in the specific instances where one wants deep DOF in low light with a given shutter speed, perspective, and framing, a small sensor camera may offer better image quality.

[QUOTE=Nick_C;4431070]

asabet wrote in post #4430796
If you were to take the 5D shot from farther back, then crop to the same view, this would give more DOF.

It would change perspective quite a bit. It would also change my ability to determine framing at the time of the shot, which is something I like to do.

asabet wrote in post #4431338
I agree with all of that. All my test shows is that in the specific instances where one wants deep DOF in low light with a given shutter speed, perspective, and framing, a small sensor camera may offer better image quality.

More DOF yes, the better quality is questionable though, generally P&S images lack detail & usually have a fair amount of noise vs a DSLR image.

For still subjects, you cant beat focus stacking, but of course thats not a lot of use for something that is on the move

[QUOTE=asabet;4431342]

Nick_C wrote in post #4431070
It would change perspective quite a bit. It would also change my ability to determine framing at the time of the shot, which is something I like to do.

Yes your right it would effect the perspective, its ok for subjects where you arnt interested in the background, like product photos against a white backing.

I welcome these tests though that you are doing, the more the better, im a sucker for tests, I find em so interesting

[QUOTE=Nick_C;4431377]

asabet wrote in post #4431342
Yes your right it would effect the perspective, its ok for subjects where you arnt interested in the background, like product photos against a white backing.

True. Fact is, you can just about always get a better shot with the larger format. You might do so by using a slightly different perspective, a slightly more shallow DOF, or different framing. I just thought the test was interesting. The result that in one little way a compact could stand up to the larger format seems to have bothered a lot of people though. In fact, I think there is a thread here largely devoted to dissing me. For better or for worse, I can't understand a word of it other than the part where they say that I and " אורן ו" are "a match made in heaven." I have no idea who or what " אורן ו" is, but I don't think they like him/her/it.

Nick_C wrote in post #4431377
I welcome these tests though that you are doing, the more the better, im a sucker for tests, I find em so interesting

Thanks! I don't have any agenda here. Like you, I just find this sort of thing interesting.

[QUOTE=asabet;4431472]

Nick_C wrote in post #4431377
True. Fact is, you can just about always get a better shot with the larger format. You might do so by using a slightly different perspective, a slightly more shallow DOF, or different framing. I just thought the test was interesting. The result that in one little way a compact could stand up to the larger format seems to have bothered a lot of people though. In fact, I think there is a thread here largely devoted to dissing me. For better or for worse, I can't understand a word of it other than the part where they say that I and " אורן ו" are "a match made in heaven." I have no idea who or what " אורן ו" is, but I don't think they like him/her/it.


Thanks! I don't have any agenda here. Like you, I just find this sort of thing interesting.

Whenever you post things like this, people are always going to challenge you, after all nobody likes to think that a cheap P&S is more capable than a £2000 DSLR.

The biggest advantage of a P&S that I found was a large DOF, great for landscapes & macro as you have found out, but also the smaller size, easier to carry

The biggest disadvantage of course though, is the AF is slow & not as reliable at locking onto subjects in general, they always have more noise & lack the tack sharpness of an expensive DSLR/Lens.

So while on the one side you are getting what could be called a "better shot" because you have more infocus, the bad side about that is the shot on average is of lower quality overall compared to the DSLR, but of course its harder to get lots of DOF with the DSLR in the first place

Best to own both formats eh?

asabet wrote in post #4431322
Not true. Same DOF, perspective and framing are accomplished by using a longer focal length and stopping down on the larger format camera.

How come ?

Take for example a 50mm [equivalent] lens on a small sensor camera (with, say, a x2.0 crop factor). It will yield the SAME perspective as a 25mm lens mounted on an FF sensor camera.

Thus my claim is: It would have been fairer if your tests would have been carried out on a wider angel lens for the 5D.

As for framing the large angel shot, you would have cropped appropriately in post-processing.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[QUOTE=Nick_C;4431555]

asabet wrote in post #4431472
Whenever you post things like this, people are always going to challenge you, after all nobody likes to think that a cheap P&S is more capable than a £2000 DSLR.

Yes the response is predictable, but I never claimed that the small sensor camera was more capable. My impression of the response at D-Spot is that many of the folks challenging me are being a touch on the defensive side instead of considering the evidence for the the very limited claim I made.

Nick_C wrote in post #4431555
but also the smaller size, easier to carry

Clearly the biggest advantage right there IMO .

Nick_C wrote in post #4431555
AF is slow & not as reliable at locking onto subjects in general,

For sure.

Nick_C wrote in post #4431555
they always have more noise & lack the tack sharpness of an expensive DSLR/Lens.

Almost always. Just not when shooting in low light, with a given shutter speed, aiming for deep DOF .

Nick_C wrote in post #4431555
Best to own both formats eh?

Absolutely!

roli_bark wrote in post #4431621
How come ?

Take for example a 50mm [equivalent] lens on a small sensor camera (with, say, a x2.0 crop factor). It will yield the SAME perspective as a 25mm lens mounted on an FF sensor camera.

Thus my claim is: It would have been fairer if your tests would have been carried out on a wider angel lens for the 5D.

As for framing the large angel shot, you would have cropped appropriately in post-processing.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Um . . . perspective is strictly based on camera-subject distance. The lens' focal length doesn't enter into it. However if we take your example, the 50 mm EFL lens on a crop sensor won't have the same FoV as the 25 on a FF body. In fact, using your 2.0 "crop factor", that 50 mm EFL lens will actually be a 25 mm lens. By the time you crop the 25 mm FF shot down to the same FoV as from the crop camera, you've got the same amount of sensor being used. So you'd be shooting exactly the same conditions. If you're trying to use the full frame from each, you'd need to use a 50 mm EFL on the smaller-sensor camera and a 50 mm on the FF body.

What the test described above is striving to achieve is to compare using the whole image from each of the cameras, from the same place so perspective and AoV are the same, and you're not throwing any of the image away. Granted, shutter speed shouldn't be a fixed quantity in that test, but shutter speed won't affect DoF.

Amin, although I'm an active participant in that mentioned "d-spot" thread about your DOF study, let me re-assure you: I have no agenda - hidden or obvious. As a matter of fact, I do find my self using more often my Fuji F810 P&S than my DSLR.

Cheers

roli_bark wrote in post #4431621
How come ?

Take for example a 50mm [equivalent] lens on a small sensor camera (with, say, a x2.0 crop factor). It will yield the SAME perspective as a 25mm lens mounted on an FF sensor camera.

Perspective, as you know, is only a function of where you stand relative to the subject. If you stand in the same place, a 25mm lens (50mm equivalent if you prefer) on a 2x crop camera will yield the same perspective as a 600mm lens on a 2x crop camera. However, there is nothing similar between a "50mm [equivalent] lens on a small sensor camera (with, say, a x2.0 crop factor)" and a "25mm lens mounted on an FF sensor camera" except for the similarity of standing in the same place. The framing is totally different. Btw, if you find this test controversial, you should see the response I got when I compared a 5D image to an image from a 2x crop camera . That time I was heavily criticized by Canon *and* Olympus users fopr being unfair. I probably was a little unfair to the Oly side, which I admitted here.

roli_bark wrote in post #4431621
Thus my claim is: It would have been fairer if your tests would have been carried out on a wider angel lens for the 5D.

As for framing the large angel shot, you would have cropped appropriately in post-processing.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't see how your way is "fairer." Your way, you get the same DOF, shutter speed, ISO, perspective, and different framing (before cropping). My way, I get the same DOF, shutter speed, perspective, and framing. I consider framing, more than ISO, to be a fundamental aspect of what makes an image. Also, as I have pointed out, I don't find it natural to compose one way when shooting with the idea of heavily cropping later.

roli_bark wrote in post #4431725
Amin, although I'm an active participant in that mentioned "d-spot" thread about your DOF study, let me re-assure you: I have no agenda - hidden or obvious. As a matter of fact, I do find my self using more often my Fuji F810 P&S than my DSLR.

Cheers

Thanks Roli. I wasn't referring to you. Anyone who wants to criticize my test methods, ideas, etc, is not only free but welcome to do so. I think that those who are saying personal things like me and who-/whatever are a "match made in heaven" are likely being a bit too defensive about their gear, that's all. I'm also curious what the post that folows with the hearts says, but maybe I'm better off not understanding . Regards, Amin

asabet wrote in post #4431727
I don't see how your way is "fairer." Your way, you get the same DOF, shutter speed, ISO, perspective, and different framing (before cropping). My way, I get the same DOF, shutter speed, perspective, and framing. I consider framing, more than ISO, to be a fundamental aspect of what makes an image. Also, as I have pointed out, I don't find it natural to compose one way when shooting with the idea of heavily cropping later.

After reading Jon's & your's explanations - I agree.

BTW, since you've been wondering: - אורן - is that "d-spot" Forum thread OP (== oren_b) ...