Pond lilly with visitor

[Tom Barry]

FZ1000:

Bee on pond lilly by tombarry975, on Flickr

[DanK]

Beautifully done. I can't see the exif. What are the settings? I assume a very small aperture.

[Wavelength]

Very beautiful

[mknittle]

Nice work Tom.

[Tom Barry]

Beautifully done. I can't see the exif. What are the settings? I assume a very small aperture.

Thanks for the kind words, Dan, Nandakumar and Mark. Dan, did you click on my Flicker id below the photo? That should take you to my photostream. Anyhow, it was f 7.1.

[Dave Humphries]

Anyhow, it was f 7.1.

As Dan will no doubt be aware, but I'll mention for the benefit of anyone else reading this; the "f/7.1" aperture on a smaller sensor camera like an FZ-1000 will need to be multiplied by the crop factor to equate to the aperture a FF or APS-C/DX DSLR owner can relate to when thinking of Depth of Field.

Without looking it up and doing the sums for both FF and APS-C/DX, in your head, just multiply the f/7 by about five or four (c/f ratio to your format), giving f/35 or f/28 equivalence for DoF - the advantage these cameras give for macro is useful, eh?

Cheers, Dave

[Tom Barry]

Yep, I find the deep DOF inherent in the FZ1000's "1-inch" sensor very useful in closeups. On the other hand, I find it helpful to try to keep the background at a distance when I'm doing casual portraits or other shots where I want the background to be unobtrusive.

[bnnrcn]

Very nice image with lovely colors

[DanK]

Without looking it up and doing the sums for both FF and AP-S/DX, in your head, just multiply the f/7 by about five or four (c/f ratio to your format), giving f/35 or f/28 equivalence for DoF - the advantage these cameras give for macro is useful, eh?

Cheers, Dave

Well, yes and no. Larger sensors can handle smaller apertures before becoming diffraction-limited, so up to a point, you may get similar results by stopping down further with a larger sensor. Colin often points out that diffraction is greatly overrated, and one can often ignore it. However, at really small apertures, it does become noticeable, and more so in macro work, where the effective f-stop is larger (larger number) than the nominal one. (That is, unless you have a Nikon that shows effective aperture.) Using the calculator on one of the tutorials on this site, a 1" sensor is diffraction-limited at f/11; my 50D is at f/16; and my 5D3 is at f/32. Of course, the drawback is that if you close down 3 stops, you need a lot more light.

[Dave Humphries]

Well, yes and no. Larger sensors can handle smaller apertures before becoming diffraction-limited, so you can often get similar results by stopping down further with a larger sensor. Colin often points out that diffraction is greatly overrated, and one can often ignore it. However, at really small apertures, it does become noticeable, and more so in macro work, where the effective f-stop is larger (larger number) than the nominal one. (That is, unless you have a Nikon that shows effective aperture.)

You're not wrong Dan.

I was just attempting to make the f-number used more 'relevant', in DoF terms, for (the majority?) of members.

[Shadowman]

Very nice.

[dem]

FYI, the crop factor for a 1" sensor is 2.7, not 4 or 5.

[Stagecoach]

Good capture Tom, these always make great subjects and the inclusion of a critter is a bonus.

[DanK]

FYI, the crop factor for a 1" sensor is 2.7, not 4 or 5.

So Wikipedia says. However, I am confused by something else. The dimensions it gives for a 1" sensor is 13.2 x 8.8 mm, which is a diagonal of 15.86 mm. Given that 1 inch = 25.4 mm, why is this called a "1 inch" sensor? Maybe 1" is not supposed to mean "one inch" in this case.

[Dave Humphries]

FYI, the crop factor for a 1" sensor is 2.7, not 4 or 5.

Now you made me look it up - and you're absolutely correct, so the figures should be (rounding like crazy) 3 or 2 times (f/21 or f/14), for FF and APS-C/DX respectively.

Why do I always get caught out when I cut corners?

Lesson to self; don't skimp the research!

Cheers, Dave

[Nicks Pics]

I have a 1 over 2/3 sensor on my bridge camera, I think. I hadn't considered that the F numbers must be calculated equivalently. I have not usually paid much attention to the f. values, because other than to darken exposures when necessary, I don't notice much affect from it. Could this be because of this equivalent issue at all.

[Tom Barry]

Here is a link to what I think is the clearest explanation of the origin of sensor size designations. Blame the Brits (I think!?):

http://www.dpreview.com/glossary/cam...m/sensor-sizes

[DanK]

Tom,

Thanks for the link. What an irrational naming system! We need a look-up table to compare sensors.

Dan

[Tom Barry]

Dan, irrational is the operative word. A friend of mine who is possibly the most intelligent person I have ever met, a man for whom the most arcane technical lingo is mother's milk, had the same reaction.

[IzzieK]

Back to topic: -- Tom this shot is also a work of art by itself. I can see this one printed and hanging on a wall somewhere where calmness is needed, a waiting room in a clinic perhaps where it can be appreciated fully in a smallist room. Wish this is mine... (and I seldom say this for someone else's shot...)