For the third time, depth-of-field is uniquely determined by magnification and aperture. Focal length and format have nothing to do with it.
Tom, the format size has nothing to do with magnification.What specific statement of mine are you objecting to?
I know aperture and magnification (and hence format size) determine depth of field and am not sure why you think I'm disgreeing with you?
Tom, the format size has nothing to do with magnification.
What the format size determines is the angle of view within the limits of the image circle of the lens.
Not the magnification projected onto the film. The magnification of the final 8x10 image, which is what depth of field is based upon.
Focus on 'normal' lenses in this sense is done by moving the lens forward or back. On small format lenses the magic is done by moving elements inside.
What I'm saying is that the glass does different things depending on the general class.
You are mixing magnification types, camera and enlarger magnification are not equals.
One thing that is typically different between large format and small is the type of lenses used.
Large format lenses are generally 'normal' in design meaning that the measured focal length and the distance between the film and the middle of the lens are the same.
I think that it is entirely subjective.
We tend to like the results better from cameras we like better, and those who use a variety of formats tend to like the larger ones better.
Actually, I think it makes it totally clear.Yes the subjectivity makes it all a bit murky.
you can be confident that the difference does arise from the expectations and subjective preferences of the user
What about the 35mm 105mm takumar?The P67 105/2.4 is an Ultron style design, from what I can find online.
Tom, the format size has nothing to do with magnification.
Assume equivalent focal length and aperture.
Better to assume same field of view so the composition is the same.
Actually in the context of this thread where the angle of view is assumed to be the same that thought doesn't work.Of course it has, if one considers format-filling. A head portrait in LF is already in the macro range, the same portrait in 35mm not.
Have you considered the fact that with large format you have to change lenses to maintain the same angle of view?It doesn't matter. The point which you guys are ignoring is that large format image need to be magnified less than a smaller format, and thus produces a different depth of field for a given aperture and focal length than a smaller format.
All of which is beside the point as my original question concerns EQUIVALENT depth of field, i.e. different aperture settings on different formats.
It doesn't matter. The point which you guys are ignoring is that large format image need to be magnified less than a smaller format, and thus produces a different depth of field for a given aperture and focal length than a smaller format.
All of which is beside the point as my original question concerns EQUIVALENT depth of field, i.e. different aperture settings on different formats.
if you enlarge a 35mm negative to 8x10 and you enlarge a MF or LF negative the same amount
and you use the same type of lens, the images will be very much the same.
There was a thread about how different apertures are needed (same measured opening?) for different formats to achieve the same look
LOL
i pretty much said that on page 1 of this thread.
Have you considered the fact that with large format you have to change lenses to maintain the same angle of view?
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?