Agreed. Wether this matters or not is debatable. Lots of happy APS camera users out there.
If you use a shorter lens on the cropped sensor to match the angle of view the prints will appear to have the same DOF at different f-stops.
No, the DOF doesn't change. But because the part that's in focus becomes a relatively bigger part of the entire image, the DOF appears to have increased.If you enlarge the APS half to 8x10, you decrease the DOF -- same lens, same f-stop.
If you shoot both at ,say, f2, an 85mm lens on full frame will give a more blurred portrait background than a 50 mm on cropped sensor. Pros carry this further to 85mm f1.2, presumably because this is what sells.
eg,https://www.blackwaterpromotions.com/crop-sensor-vs-full-frame-sensor-lens-focal-length-and-depth-of-field/#:~:text=If you were to mount,x, which equals 127.5mm.
Add the magnification that you have to add in to produce the same size print and the DOF is the same. Minox & 16mm cameras have tiny formats, and incredible DOF -- if you only make 3x5" prints. Blow them up and they have the same dof as a 35mm camera.
No, the DOF doesn't change.
This kinda gets to my reason for starting this thread.
I'm just now starting to learn about digital cameras. I place very high value on small and light weight. From my point of view, it's very difficult to see any real disadvantage to an APS-C camera that is smaller, lighter weight and less expensive than its nearly equivalently spec'd full frame sibling. Thus, the question.
I see this mentioned a lot. It makes no sense to me. Are these claims assuming that one uses different focal lengths for the different formats? Or is there something else going on?
Using the DOF calculator from Cambridge in Color, the DOF perceived by a person with 20/20 vision (not the poor vision assumed for 'manufacturer standard')
both see same Field of View of the scene...FL is appropriate to the smaller frame size of APS-C
- FF with 100mm f/2.8 lens at shooting distance of 10' has DOF zone of 0.18'
- APS-C with 60mm f/2.8 lens at shooting distance of 10' has DOF zone of 0.31'
I think this is what I was wondering about. Can you elaborate? Why does larger area imply better S/N ?
oh....maybe because more area --> more photons?
One point you need to add -- which is mentioned in the DOF calculator instructions -- is "our eyes can perceive finer detail as the print size increases, and so the depth of field decreases"
Since the APS image must be cropped (magnified by 2X) to create the same size print as a FF image, the DOF decreases. The calculator does not add this factor in.
You need to compare apples to apples.
Argue argue argue.
Here's a test. Two cameras, one APS-C one Full frame. Both using the same lens and setting. I tried to approximate the distance offset when using the crop.
Canon EOS 5DMk4, EF 24-70 f/5.0 1/125 ISO100. Lens is set to 50mm
Canon 550D (T2i) EF 24-70 f/5.0 1/125 ISO100. Lens is set to 35mm
Yes, I'm slightly closer using the 5D full frame but look at the difference in background blur. Compare the garage and swing set and the distance between the two shots is not much
Just to try on the pants I got much closer with the APS-C sensor to boost the blur
Go argue over stats and papers. I went out and took the shots to prove my point.
I rest my case.
Actually the starter fluid moved. Looks like the cameras didn't.Both cameras should have the sensor at exactly the same spot. It looks like you moved the cameras. But even if you did the distant background blur would still be roughly the same as what you show.
Thanks! That's very helpful.I went out and took the shots...
Both cameras should have the sensor at exactly the same spot. It looks like you moved the cameras. But even if you did the distant background blur would still be roughly the same as what you show.
Actually the starter fluid moved. Looks like the cameras didn't.
Thanks! That's very helpful.
I did my best to try to keep them relative. This wasn't exact science it was just to prove a point. But yeah, the background blur on FF is different from APS-C. Enough to warrant spending the extra money and larger size? That's up to you, I think so.
A concept not widely understood by photographers is that appearance of a photo is
A) NOT MERELY 'what is in focus...the DOF zone depth', but also B) how out of focus is the 'not in focus' background and foreground !In my post #60, I responded to #BradS question within the context of Depth of Field difference. The Blur (that which is 'out of focus' to our eye/brain) has a difference as well, which is driven by the Aperture Diameter (not driven by f/number). Using the 100mm f/2.8 and 60mm f/2.8 examples from post #60
In this case, APS-C image has deeper DOF zone than FF, and the background blur (what appears to us as 'out of focus') is MORE BLURRY in the FF image than in the APS-C image...the larger diameter opening of the FF FL causes the farfield to be more blurry than the APS-C FL diameter! I illustrate with these two photos (Canon 5D vs. Canon 40D -- somewhat similar pixel counts) both output from Lightroom as 1600 x 1200 images for posting at very similar subject sizes
- FF 100mm f/2.8 has a calculated 35.7mm aperture diameter
- APS-C 60mm f/2.8 has a calculated 21.4mm aperture diameter
FF
APS-C
Point of focus was on the same bloom. Note the nearfield just outside the near DOF, note the farfield just outside the DOF, and note the out-of-focus background rail and the distant out-of-focus background hills.
As I said, they are comparing apples and oranges. Use the same lens at the same f-stop, one FF & one APS. You have to magnify the APS image 2X to get the same size print -- and DOF decreases due to the increased magnification, as Stroebel points out in his book (above). The circle of confusion increases and the DOF decreases -- with magnification or cropping. It's not rocket surgery.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?