jeromego wrote in post #7888270
i didnt know you can get extra DOF (depth of field) on a 5D2. or are you talking about the Field of View?
5dMKII will have larger DOF at 100% than a 40d at 100% given the same lens and aperture. Most likely he did mean field of view though.
Nightstalker wrote in post #7888399
DOF is more pronounced at longer focal lengths so given the same framing DOF is reduced in a full frame as DOF is based on actual focal length and not effective focal length.
So comparing Crop Vs FF - to get the same framing as a 50mm lens on a 1.6 crop such as a 40D will require an 80mm on a full frame. DOF at 80mm will be less than the DOF at 50mm even though the composition is identical.
At least, this is how it was explained to me.
That was the half-assed way of explaining it. DOF in terms of film is a function of focal length and aperture only. When you look at the film with a 10x glass it doesn't matter if it was aps or standard 35mm, the amount in focus will be the same. The framing is usually different though, so for the same framing the smaller sensors will generally have smaller focal lengths, and DOF increases.
Now, if you look at 100%, pixel density does come into play. The difference between 5dmkii and 40d isn't that pronounced, but back in the day of the 5d vs 30d, it was huge. The higher the pixel density, the smaller your DOF is at 100%. Why? Simply because DOF is based on the same principles as diffraction, the only reason why something looks just as sharp is because you aren't resolving enough of the image to notice the difference. With 30d, you had nearly twice the resolution, so you would lose a proportional chunk of the DOF compared to 5d with same focal length and aperture. In some cases, the difference would be large enough that at 100% the FF sensor actually had an advantage over the aps-c sensor even with a longer focal length on the FF sensor (5d vs 50d will definately show this). Most people don't consider these effects, but they do exist in the realm of pixel peeping, which has become more and more popular as high density SLR systems get into more hands (which often have no real photographic experience, and have no clue about the limitations of the camera systems).
AdamLewis wrote in post #7888769
The vignetting is from the lens. It does that. Youll notice that a lot of pictures vignette now when they didnt used to.
Mechanical vignetting also happens, and it is a big problem. On a 16-35 with FF you can get mechanical vignetting from filters, which is why slim filters exist. OP seems to know a bit about this difference between mechanical and lens vignetting, hence only talked about 16-35 rather than the other two lenses that generally don't need slim filters.
I don't hate macs or OSX, I hate people and statements that portray them as better than anything else. Macs are A solution, not THE solution. Get a good desktop i7 with Windows 7 and come tell me that sucks for photo or video editing.