Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Depth of Field, Focal Length, and Sensor Sizes

  1. #21
    pnodrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Nomadic but not homeless, ex N.Z. now Aust.
    Posts
    4,151
    Real Name
    Paul

    Re: Depth of Field, Focal Length, and Sensor Sizes

    Quote Originally Posted by Colin Southern View Post
    I can't ever recall shooting one at F16 and cursing that it couldn't be F15.65 because that's what a calculator said would give me an ideal DoF either ...
    Colin I see you are assuming you can still hold the camera steady with the slower shutter speed F16 will give.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Dallas, Texas, USA
    Posts
    74
    Real Name
    Manu

    Re: Depth of Field, Focal Length, and Sensor Sizes

    Sometimes, f/16 can come in handy though... even handheld under cloudy conditions with 3-stops of stabilization:
    Depth of Field, Focal Length, and Sensor Sizes
    Sony A55 + Sony 16-50/2.8 SSM (ISO 100, 35mm, f/16, 1/6s)

    And, of course the idea also being an extended DoF.
    Quote Originally Posted by New Daddy View Post
    One thing I'd like to point out is the DOF calculator mentioned above (It happens to be the first google result when you do a search on "dof calculator"). I've used it many times too, but after all, I think the calculator is very misleading. At the same focal length (in absolute mm, not in 35mm equivalent), same aperture and same subject distance, the depth of field

    Below is from Wikipedia on depth of field. It also says that if the focal length and subject distance are the same, the DOF in different sensor size will depend on the size of the final print. The two sensor will have the same DOF if the final images are not magnified. The smaller sensor will have LARGER DOF only if its final image is magnified to match that of a larger sensor (the second bullet point below). The DOF Master at the above link assumes that this will be the case (i.e., the final images will be magnified to result in the same size regardless of the sensor size) without saying as much on the web page. It took me a while to figure out their assumptions.
    DoF calculators plug-in crop factor to account for the differences either with selection by model name or with such factors as circle of confusion.

    And a lot of confusion seems to come from setting equivalences between sensor sizes. For example, a typical argument would be that a f/1.8 lens on APS-c would give a DoF of f/2.8 lens on Full Frame. However, that is true only when we also consider equivalence on field of view. A 35mm f/1.8 lens on APS-c would compare to a 52mm f/2.8 lens on FF, in terms of DoF and FoV, with similar subject size.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    17,660
    Real Name
    Have a guess :)

    Re: Depth of Field, Focal Length, and Sensor Sizes

    Quote Originally Posted by pnodrog View Post
    Colin I see you are assuming you can still hold the camera steady with the slower shutter speed F16 will give.
    I've taken hand-held shots at F32 - but usually I just use my tripod.
    Last edited by Colin Southern; 27th September 2013 at 08:19 AM.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,956
    Real Name
    Ted

    Re: Depth of Field, Focal Length, and Sensor Sizes

    Hello, Flamell and welcome,

    I'm a great believer in formulae for a full understanding of something like DOF. Many folks are not.

    Unfortunately, general statements have to be qualified with lots of ifs, buts and mebbes and so it is with general questions but I'll give it a shot:

    Quote Originally Posted by Flammel View Post
    That wasn't my question, really.

    I asked:
    Here we go . . . . .

    Does focal length change depth of field if the subject occupies the same portion of the image? (ie. if you move forward/back)
    The short answer is: No.

    If you use the same exact focal length on a full frame camera as on a cropped sensor camera, would you get the same depth of field?

    I'm assuming that all other values, including aperture, are not changed.
    The short answer is: Yes.

    What I don't get is this: assuming that a cropped sensor gives you the equivalent of cropping the final image (assuming cropped res. = res. of cropped sensor, pixel size remains constant), how would a larger sensor have a shallower depth of field?
    Sensors do not have a depth of field, which is perhaps why you don't get it.

    Depth of field is a function of the lens. A cropped sensor just uses a smaller portion of the image circle.
    No, depth of field is not just a function of the lens.

    So, to say that larger sensors have a smaller depth of field must mean: to achieve the same image as a full frame camera, an otherwise identical cropped sensor must use a wider focal length. Thus, the argument is that longer focal lengths give you a shallower depth of field.

    So, the original question: Does focal length affect depth of field?
    "wider focal length" is a peculiar term, haven't seen that before, but focal length does not by itself affect DOF. So, the answer is: No.

    So: Does sensor size directly affect depth of field?
    Yes or No, see below.

    And now for a formula that clearly defines the parameters of DOF, for stuff that is close-ish to the camera:

    DOF = 2*CoC*N*(1+m)/m^2 where:

    CoC (unfortunately) depends on how the image is to viewed, i.e. the enlargement from the sensor to the viewing medium. This definition introduces the sensor size as a factor. Other folk use a multiple of the sensor pixel pitch which removes the viewing medium and hence sensor size from the equation.

    N is the f-number that you set in-camera. (1+m) accounts for extension of the lens for closer subjects.

    m is the magnification factor as in the size of a subject at the sensor divided by the actual size of the subject in the scene. m is what changes if you step back and forth to frame a scene and that is why the DOF changes by so doing.

    m^2 means m squared.

    You might want to read the above a time or two.
    Last edited by xpatUSA; 27th September 2013 at 03:47 AM.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    17,660
    Real Name
    Have a guess :)

    Re: Depth of Field, Focal Length, and Sensor Sizes

    Quote Originally Posted by xpatUSA View Post
    Hello, Flamell and welcome,
    Unfortunately ... Flammel hasn't been seen here for over 3years.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    52
    Real Name
    Rick

    Re: Depth of Field, Focal Length, and Sensor Sizes

    Quote Originally Posted by Colin Southern View Post
    Unfortunately ... Flammel hasn't been seen here for over 3years.
    Mea culpa.

    I didn't want to start a new thread just to reiterate the discussion made in this outdated thread.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,956
    Real Name
    Ted

    Re: Depth of Field, Focal Length, and Sensor Sizes

    Thanks Gents,

    Must remember to check next time

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •