It's one thing to know the general theory, but to see it demonstrated with so much clarity right before your eyes really drives the understanding home almost as if you're getting the experience yourself. Thanks for these comparisons.
The depth of field differs because of the different focal lengths of the lenses, required to give the roughly equal field of view ( stated as 50 "equvalent") . DOF is dependent on focal length, aperture and subject/camera distance. You have to state the ACTUAL focal length of the lenses you are using with each format. If a 25mm lens on a MFT sensor gives same FOV as a 50 mm on 35 FF, it has the DOF of a-any 25mm lens.
@@TheSlantedLens it's a pity that there is not a comparison of e.g. FF at aperture f2.8 and MFT at f1.4 or f1.2. A lot of people are mistake that MFT are not having enough backgroud bokeh or nicer DOF which is not true. This given comparison would show fair comparison. Of course f2.8 on FF,APS-C or MFT will be different... but can they be similar? And if so, in which setting... I shoot MFT and I have PRo lenses at f1.2 , blur is beautiful, or course, I will never achieve the look of FF f1.2... nevertheless when shooting with my Oly 75mm f1.8 I'm getting amazing boken and dreamy look... if this is what you're after... you only need to step back and use longer lens
@Russell, You beat me to the comment! Like if we ignore field of view and the crop factor of any sensor, the focal length itself (and aperture) remain identical. I think that's why when trying to calculate lens equivalents across different sensor sizes we have to apply the crop factor to the aperture value in addition to the focal length. Even with wider apertures, the magnification of the focal length remains the same in terms of "compression."
@@DJLazinator Thank you, yes I think much of the ‘confusion’ about DOF with various formats arises from the careless use of the term “becomes” such as “a 50mm FF lens ‘becomes’ a 75mm on an APS-C sensor” err no it doesn’t, the lens has 50mm engraved on it when it came out of the factory and always remains 50mm. People started thinking they actually had an eg 75mm lens on the camera, it is the field of view that changed not the focal length, and that was forgotten, I have seen articles by supposedly professional photographic journalists who don’t realise that.
Very true, the depth of field depends mostly on focusing distance, angle of view, and diameter of aperture. In this specific case, the important change in optics between the cameras is the diameter of the aperture: the experiment is bizarrely done at constant f-number, so, of course the DOF will change. If the experiment was made at constant aperture diameter instead, there wouldn't be much noticeable difference. Basically, a 25mm MFT lens at f1.4 has the same angle of view and same DOF as a 50mm FF lens at f2.8.
All true etc. However, there is a common misconception. Often, there is a statement made when talking about using a crop factor in stead of full frame for added reach: I am talking about using a FF and then cropping the image vs shooting the shot with the same lens (focal length and aperture ) and then they say the ff shot has more background blur than the CF shot. This is nonsense. Because all you have done is crop while taking the shot. If you use a FF to take the same image as a CF you will use a different focal length and then you get different DOF for the same aperture as you clearly demonstrated here
So, from all of the comments, I guess another way to do this comparison (to be scientifically pleasing when talking about DOF) is to use the same focal length lenses on each of the cameras and then emphasize the distance needed between the subject/object and the photographer when taking a picture within same FOV. I gues it could have some practical benefits to know how far/close you, as a photographer, have to be from/to your subject/object when comparing camera sensor sizes, if you're determined to use a lens with the same focal length to achieve the same FOV.
This is an odd comparison, I would advise to start with the science behind it and then show it. So DoF is affected (on your RAW) by only 2 factors. Distance to subject and the size of your aperture (in mm). the tricky part is that the last one is not easy to find. Because the F-number is NOT the size of your aperture. It is the size of your aperture in relation to the focal length. (So F-number is not a measurement for DoF but for the amount of light passed through). This means that a aperture of F4 at 200mm is BIGGER than f1.7 at 17mm. So when you're comparing lenzes of different focal lenghts at the same F-number the aperture size is not the same and that results in a different DOF. This will also point out a major drawback of smaller sensor although on paper you can get the same DoF using the same variables. The lenzes it self might not be availeable .So for a picture on a FF you need a 50mm f2.8 which is 25mm F1.4 on MFT to get the same distance to subject and same aperture size (I wonder if that lens exist though).... I will not add what happens if we start printing the photo's (enlargement factor).. I always think it is odd we do this "focal length equivalent" to match what we see but don't do this for the F-number when comparisons are made.
Depth of field is NOT dependent on sensor size. Your demonstration is not useless, but you’re misleading novices by not emphasizing all the other differences required to maintain a similar framing of the scene, which are actually responsible for the change in DOF. The difference in DOF is due to different focal lengths, camera to subject distance and distance to the background. This is a fair practical demonstration, but the differences are attributed to the wrong cause.
What you are saying is technically correct but it does not translate to application. A person doesn't take a camera and frame the head differently depending on the sensor depending on the sensor they are shooting on. We frame, compose and shoot the same on each format. So the background now has, at f/2.8 a much different look, more or less out of focus depending on the sensor we are using. That is why I love medium format, that shallower depth of field when I frame the person the same in the shot.
I cant believe you spent untold hours on this video and the final product (discussing DOF) is virtually useless lmao. You never even mentioned the lenses, or focal length they were set at. To maintain the same framing, you would need to use a smaller focal length on the smaller sensor. Smaller focal length will always have larger depth of field. You also didnt bring up the most important part. Relative aperture. Im sure all the lenses except maybe the medium format (but who knows since you never mentioned the lenses used) use 35mm equivilent measurements of focal length and aperture (in crop sensor lenses case, solely for marketing reasons) since they do not actually perform to those settings when used on those crop sensor cameras. 4/3 is a full 2 stops smaller in relative aperture, hence the much deeper depth of field than a full frame sensor/lens. Feels like that might have been some important info... does nobody technically competent review these scripts?
We are an application channel. We are for people who shoot. Not a technical examination of the medium. We did use equivalent 50mm lenses. We did shoot them all at f/2.8. Obviously you didn't look at the write-up below or watch the whole video.
Hi, I am a filmmaker, using the BMPCC 4K, and I want to use longer focal length lens for some shots to help with fight scenes and also to separate characters from the background and get a really blurred background. My question is, if I bought, say, a Meike 65mm or 85mm lens - which would equate to I assume 130mm or 170mm on the APSC BM - or a Sirui 75mm lens, would they have the same characteristics of their original focal length, or would the depth of field improve due to going from 85mm to 170mm ? Or would the lens characteristics stay the same ? Basically I'm wondering if I can "cheat" the look of a telephoto lens by putting a 65mm full frame lens onto an APSC lens ! Hope that makes sense ! Any info or advice would be great, thanks : )
The Fuji is not really medium format, it's in between 35mm full frame and 645 medium format. I hate crop sensors being advertised as what they are not. A valid digital medium format comparison would be done with a Phase One camera. With large format, f64 is common for landscape but by nature, larger formats allow more light in.
Entirely faulty comparison. DOF does not change based on sensor size. Since the distance and aperture were consistent, the only change that really effects DOF is the lens focal length (equivalent doesn't cut it). It's amazing that there is still so much confusion around DOF, and videos like this only add to that confusion.
Agreed. Although I think he just wanted to keep it simple, I am pretty sure he knows it. But it could have been mentioned. The bottom line is not incorrect. For exactly the same image in terms of subject size, you need to compensate with a wider aperture in smaller sensors, as you are either further away or using a shorter focal length.
back in the film era I´ve learned for each film size there might be a specific lens size as "default" 50mm for 35mm 80mm for mamyia 6x4,5cm and 120mm for sinar 4x5 inches ...
This is a great comparison of the effective DoF with different camera sensor sizes. I shoot mostly architecture, and the APS-C sensor makes my life a bit easier. I can use a lower f-stop and don't have to work my strobes quite so hard. @TheSlantedLens, I am curious about your thoughts on the Canon R7.
The biggest issue I have when I went over to medium format was that my brain was still accustomed to full frame, and I kept getting the depth of field I wanted slightly off.
OK I absolutely UNDERSTAND why Macro shooters love Micro 4/3 cameras. If you're about bokeh, the Micro 4/3 is NOT the droid you are looking for. Thanks for the video JPM.
Sensor size is only one factor. Focal length is another. The Olympus 75 f/1.8 M43 is an excellent lens and you can get plenty shallow DOF. I have photos where you'd never know it's shot on M43. I can even get a shallow DOF shooting around 400mm on my Panasonic bridge cameras with little 1/2.33 sensors.
@@TheSlantedLens I liked your video. I have a Panasonic full frame camera and a Olympus m43 camera. I like to carry my Olympus when traveling. It is lighter, less bulky, I can carry more lenses, I don't get that much attention, I am able to use my camera where big full frame cameras are not allowed and on top of all that I like it is perfect for getting the subject and the background perfectly sharp. The only cons are when trying to freeze movement of moving subjects at night, the images get definitely more noisy than full frame camera, but thanks to AI denoise technology I can shoot at iso 6400 without problems
Thank you for the practical demonstration. A positive benefit to a long DOF is the ability to open the lens in lower light levels and still keep the subject in focus. Just a thought...
This is only partly true because sensor size is only one factor that affects DOF. You also have aperture and focal length. Take a M43 lens like the incredible Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2 for example. You can get a very shallow DOF with it, especially with headshots. Most would never know it was shot with a M43 system. The Olympus 75 f/1.8 is another great M43 lens for portraits with shallow DOF. Ive used both for photos that have been published internationally. It's easier to get a shallow DOF with larger sensor cameras, but it can also be done with much smaller sensors.
I normally love this but TBH with all the AI and Photoshop, If you are spending big money on bokeh you are wasting your money. That being said this would have been great if done a few years ago. Fast Glass wasn’t made with bokeh in mind, it is to let in more light when you need more light. @JPM keep up the good work
11:50 This doesn't really make a lot of sense, in my opinion. A full frame f/1.2 lens will give you roughly the same DOF as a medium format f/1.7 lens, which is the biggest aperture lens Fuji offers, for Hasselblad I think it's f/1.9 even. For cropping and resolution there of course is an advantage, as for depth of field, not so much. Everything you can do with medium format can also be achieved with full frame gear.
There is the Mitakon 85mm 1.2 for gfx, but then again there is the 0.95 Noctilux for FF soo buying GFX for less DoF is not really a valid argument. With that said, I would love to own a GFX.
As posted several times focal length matters too!! You did very well in keeping the size of the subject constant. With sensors of different sizes that can only be achieved by changing the distance to the object or by changing the focal length, affecting the depth of field. With the larger sensors you had to use longer focal lengths to fill the frame as with the smaller sensors. I understand the preference for keeping it simple, though.
Another way to put it is MFT has two stops more DOF at the same aperture and equivalent field of view than full frame due to the 2.0x crop factor. MFT user for 10 years, and I love that, I like to see more in focus 😊
Sensor size DOES NOT affect depth of field. The focal length of the lens and the distance from the subject is what affects depth of field. If you put a 50mm lens on every camera set at an aperture of f/4 and set them at the same distance from the subject, the depth of field will be the same. Yes, how much is included in the frame will differ because of the crop factors, but the depth of field is not directly affected by sensor size. Instead, with this test, you have set the distance from the subject the same, but are changing the focal length to get equivalent framing.
What you are missing and you will realize it once you do it is Oly mated to 1.2 45 mm zuiko….it will blow your fuji Medium Format images off the water.
You can get perfect depth of field with a pin hole camera. But the drawback is the exposure required! Stopping any camera right down will increase the depth of field at the expense of exposure time, obviously. The camera manufacturers are catering for amateurs who are not prepared to use a tripod! A cheap camera on a tripod stopped right down to f22 will give as good a depth of field as anything hand held with a fantastic sensor and lens! Thanks for uploading.
That is like General saying to the messenger who rode all night to give him critical information. "I am glad you got me this critical information, but why didn't you get here faster?"
It's one thing to know the general theory, but to see it demonstrated with so much clarity right before your eyes really drives the understanding home almost as if you're getting the experience yourself. Thanks for these comparisons.
Thank you very much! You understood the test because it applies to people who shoot.
The depth of field differs because of the different focal lengths of the lenses, required to give the roughly equal field of view ( stated as 50 "equvalent") . DOF is dependent on focal length, aperture and subject/camera distance. You have to state the ACTUAL focal length of the lenses you are using with each format. If a 25mm lens on a MFT sensor gives same FOV as a 50 mm on 35 FF, it has the DOF of a-any 25mm lens.
Very true. The lenses we used are listed in the write-up below the video.
@@TheSlantedLens it's a pity that there is not a comparison of e.g. FF at aperture f2.8 and MFT at f1.4 or f1.2. A lot of people are mistake that MFT are not having enough backgroud bokeh or nicer DOF which is not true. This given comparison would show fair comparison. Of course f2.8 on FF,APS-C or MFT will be different... but can they be similar? And if so, in which setting... I shoot MFT and I have PRo lenses at f1.2 , blur is beautiful, or course, I will never achieve the look of FF f1.2... nevertheless when shooting with my Oly 75mm f1.8 I'm getting amazing boken and dreamy look... if this is what you're after... you only need to step back and use longer lens
@Russell, You beat me to the comment! Like if we ignore field of view and the crop factor of any sensor, the focal length itself (and aperture) remain identical. I think that's why when trying to calculate lens equivalents across different sensor sizes we have to apply the crop factor to the aperture value in addition to the focal length. Even with wider apertures, the magnification of the focal length remains the same in terms of "compression."
@@DJLazinator Thank you, yes I think much of the ‘confusion’ about DOF with various formats arises from the careless use of the term “becomes” such as “a 50mm FF lens ‘becomes’ a 75mm on an APS-C sensor” err no it doesn’t, the lens has 50mm engraved on it when it came out of the factory and always remains 50mm. People started thinking they actually had an eg 75mm lens on the camera, it is the field of view that changed not the focal length, and that was forgotten, I have seen articles by supposedly professional photographic journalists who don’t realise that.
Very true, the depth of field depends mostly on focusing distance, angle of view, and diameter of aperture. In this specific case, the important change in optics between the cameras is the diameter of the aperture: the experiment is bizarrely done at constant f-number, so, of course the DOF will change. If the experiment was made at constant aperture diameter instead, there wouldn't be much noticeable difference. Basically, a 25mm MFT lens at f1.4 has the same angle of view and same DOF as a 50mm FF lens at f2.8.
All true etc. However, there is a common misconception. Often, there is a statement made when talking about using a crop factor in stead of full frame for added reach: I am talking about using a FF and then cropping the image vs shooting the shot with the same lens (focal length and aperture ) and then they say the ff shot has more background blur than the CF shot. This is nonsense. Because all you have done is crop while taking the shot. If you use a FF to take the same image as a CF you will use a different focal length and then you get different DOF for the same aperture as you clearly demonstrated here
Take a look at the comparison images at time stamps 09:14 and 10:03
So, from all of the comments, I guess another way to do this comparison (to be scientifically pleasing when talking about DOF) is to use the same focal length lenses on each of the cameras and then emphasize the distance needed between the subject/object and the photographer when taking a picture within same FOV.
I gues it could have some practical benefits to know how far/close you, as a photographer, have to be from/to your subject/object when comparing camera sensor sizes, if you're determined to use a lens with the same focal length to achieve the same FOV.
There are several different ways to think about the situation. Some ways work for some people better than others.
That would be another approach and would teach some good things as well.
This is an odd comparison, I would advise to start with the science behind it and then show it. So DoF is affected (on your RAW) by only 2 factors. Distance to subject and the size of your aperture (in mm). the tricky part is that the last one is not easy to find. Because the F-number is NOT the size of your aperture. It is the size of your aperture in relation to the focal length. (So F-number is not a measurement for DoF but for the amount of light passed through). This means that a aperture of F4 at 200mm is BIGGER than f1.7 at 17mm. So when you're comparing lenzes of different focal lenghts at the same F-number the aperture size is not the same and that results in a different DOF. This will also point out a major drawback of smaller sensor although on paper you can get the same DoF using the same variables. The lenzes it self might not be availeable .So for a picture on a FF you need a 50mm f2.8 which is 25mm F1.4 on MFT to get the same distance to subject and same aperture size (I wonder if that lens exist though).... I will not add what happens if we start printing the photo's (enlargement factor).. I always think it is odd we do this "focal length equivalent" to match what we see but don't do this for the F-number when comparisons are made.
Depth of field is NOT dependent on sensor size. Your demonstration is not useless, but you’re misleading novices by not emphasizing all the other differences required to maintain a similar framing of the scene, which are actually responsible for the change in DOF. The difference in DOF is due to different focal lengths, camera to subject distance and distance to the background. This is a fair practical demonstration, but the differences are attributed to the wrong cause.
What you are saying is technically correct but it does not translate to application. A person doesn't take a camera and frame the head differently depending on the sensor depending on the sensor they are shooting on. We frame, compose and shoot the same on each format. So the background now has, at f/2.8 a much different look, more or less out of focus depending on the sensor we are using. That is why I love medium format, that shallower depth of field when I frame the person the same in the shot.
I cant believe you spent untold hours on this video and the final product (discussing DOF) is virtually useless lmao. You never even mentioned the lenses, or focal length they were set at. To maintain the same framing, you would need to use a smaller focal length on the smaller sensor. Smaller focal length will always have larger depth of field. You also didnt bring up the most important part. Relative aperture. Im sure all the lenses except maybe the medium format (but who knows since you never mentioned the lenses used) use 35mm equivilent measurements of focal length and aperture (in crop sensor lenses case, solely for marketing reasons) since they do not actually perform to those settings when used on those crop sensor cameras. 4/3 is a full 2 stops smaller in relative aperture, hence the much deeper depth of field than a full frame sensor/lens. Feels like that might have been some important info... does nobody technically competent review these scripts?
We are an application channel. We are for people who shoot. Not a technical examination of the medium. We did use equivalent 50mm lenses. We did shoot them all at f/2.8. Obviously you didn't look at the write-up below or watch the whole video.
Great video thank you. The colours from the Panasonic G9 II look absolutely amazing - wow!!!
Yeah, those Panasonic colors are really nice.
Hi, I am a filmmaker, using the BMPCC 4K, and I want to use longer focal length lens for some shots to help with fight scenes and also to separate characters from the background and get a really blurred background. My question is, if I bought, say, a Meike 65mm or 85mm lens - which would equate to I assume 130mm or 170mm on the APSC BM - or a Sirui 75mm lens, would they have the same characteristics of their original focal length, or would the depth of field improve due to going from 85mm to 170mm ? Or would the lens characteristics stay the same ? Basically I'm wondering if I can "cheat" the look of a telephoto lens by putting a 65mm full frame lens onto an APSC lens ! Hope that makes sense ! Any info or advice would be great, thanks : )
The Fuji is not really medium format, it's in between 35mm full frame and 645 medium format. I hate crop sensors being advertised as what they are not. A valid digital medium format comparison would be done with a Phase One camera. With large format, f64 is common for landscape but by nature, larger formats allow more light in.
Entirely faulty comparison. DOF does not change based on sensor size. Since the distance and aperture were consistent, the only change that really effects DOF is the lens focal length (equivalent doesn't cut it). It's amazing that there is still so much confusion around DOF, and videos like this only add to that confusion.
Agreed. Although I think he just wanted to keep it simple, I am pretty sure he knows it. But it could have been mentioned. The bottom line is not incorrect. For exactly the same image in terms of subject size, you need to compensate with a wider aperture in smaller sensors, as you are either further away or using a shorter focal length.
back in the film era I´ve learned for each film size there might be a specific lens size as "default" 50mm for 35mm 80mm for mamyia 6x4,5cm and 120mm for sinar 4x5 inches ...
Yes, they all have their equivalent sizes.
This is a great comparison of the effective DoF with different camera sensor sizes. I shoot mostly architecture, and the APS-C sensor makes my life a bit easier. I can use a lower f-stop and don't have to work my strobes quite so hard. @TheSlantedLens, I am curious about your thoughts on the Canon R7.
We love the R7. Check out these videos: ruclips.net/video/7xEF55FmmK8/видео.html and ruclips.net/video/I_qGnpeFcqw/видео.html
Thoes Sony colours are terrible
It is surprising the difference in the camera color science.
The biggest issue I have when I went over to medium format was that my brain was still accustomed to full frame, and I kept getting the depth of field I wanted slightly off.
Another good point, that each format will take some adjusting when shooting.
OK I absolutely UNDERSTAND why Macro shooters love Micro 4/3 cameras. If you're about bokeh, the Micro 4/3 is NOT the droid you are looking for. Thanks for the video JPM.
Sensor size is only one factor. Focal length is another. The Olympus 75 f/1.8 M43 is an excellent lens and you can get plenty shallow DOF. I have photos where you'd never know it's shot on M43. I can even get a shallow DOF shooting around 400mm on my Panasonic bridge cameras with little 1/2.33 sensors.
Good points. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Yeah, that's right. I shot portrait picture using nikon b500 bridge camera, it still give a blur background. U just have to utilize it
I particularly liked you bringing up the part of only two rows of people with medium format. Very practical and useful.
Thanks for your comment and feedback. Keep on clickin!
And about Aps-c mode in Sony ? Good days for all!
This was such a good demo. Thanks for taking the time to do it. It really cemented what I kind of knew; seeing it really helped.
Thanks, your comment helps make it worthwhile.
I think it is a shame that so many today use a 50mm full frame Lens for portraits, I will not do it !
Yeah, not as good for the face!
Every photographer should know this.
No, they dont because it's not accurate information.
@@michaelbell75Well said, Michael! The change in the lenses’ focal length, not the cameras’ sensor size, affected DOF.
Micro four thirds cameras are perfect for travel/vacations because subject and background are sharp
There was no right and wrong to this test. I just wanted everyone to see what the options are and you have a great option for your travel images!
@@TheSlantedLens I liked your video. I have a Panasonic full frame camera and a Olympus m43 camera. I like to carry my Olympus when traveling. It is lighter, less bulky, I can carry more lenses, I don't get that much attention, I am able to use my camera where big full frame cameras are not allowed and on top of all that I like it is perfect for getting the subject and the background perfectly sharp.
The only cons are when trying to freeze movement of moving subjects at night, the images get definitely more noisy than full frame camera, but thanks to AI denoise technology I can shoot at iso 6400 without problems
Love this!
Thank you! And thanks for watching!
I only have fullframe cameras, so no issues here.
Full frame are great. But some people to prefer the other camera sizes for their different benefits.
Thank you for the practical demonstration. A positive benefit to a long DOF is the ability to open the lens in lower light levels and still keep the subject in focus. Just a thought...
That is a great thought, absolutely. The pros and cons of this go both ways.
terrific demo. thanks so much!
I am new to photography and have a Canon R7. Perhaps 35 mm lens at 1.8 might help the situation..
When you go to f/1.8 on an APS-C it will be more out of focus in the background than an f/2.8 on a full frame camera.
For the MFT Lumix G9Mk2, it would depend on the lens used to get more bokeh no? A faster lens would get that full frame creamy backdrop.
Yes, since we used f/2.8 for this test, if you can get an f/1.2 then you will have that more creamy bokeh with the G9 II.
@@TheSlantedLens The Noticon lens MFT lens is amazing for that. :)
Perfectly timed video for me. This makes perfect sense. Thank you so much for doing this!!! Greatly appreciated!
You're so welcome! So glad you found it helpful!
You made this easy to understand. Thank you!
Glad to hear that! And that it was helpful!
This is only partly true because sensor size is only one factor that affects DOF. You also have aperture and focal length. Take a M43 lens like the incredible Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2 for example. You can get a very shallow DOF with it, especially with headshots. Most would never know it was shot with a M43 system. The Olympus 75 f/1.8 is another great M43 lens for portraits with shallow DOF. Ive used both for photos that have been published internationally. It's easier to get a shallow DOF with larger sensor cameras, but it can also be done with much smaller sensors.
Excellent point and so true. Thanks for sharing!
Great video
Thank you and thanks for watching!
I normally love this but TBH with all the AI and Photoshop, If you are spending big money on bokeh you are wasting your money. That being said this would have been great if done a few years ago.
Fast Glass wasn’t made with bokeh in mind, it is to let in more light when you need more light.
@JPM keep up the good work
It is nice that we have those options with AI today. But not everyone likes to mess with post processing of their images.
11:50 This doesn't really make a lot of sense, in my opinion.
A full frame f/1.2 lens will give you roughly the same DOF as a medium format f/1.7 lens, which is the biggest aperture lens Fuji offers, for Hasselblad I think it's f/1.9 even.
For cropping and resolution there of course is an advantage, as for depth of field, not so much. Everything you can do with medium format can also be achieved with full frame gear.
There is the Mitakon 85mm 1.2 for gfx, but then again there is the 0.95 Noctilux for FF soo buying GFX for less DoF is not really a valid argument. With that said, I would love to own a GFX.
They all have advantages for different purposes.
As posted several times focal length matters too!! You did very well in keeping the size of the subject constant. With sensors of different sizes that can only be achieved by changing the distance to the object or by changing the focal length, affecting the depth of field. With the larger sensors you had to use longer focal lengths to fill the frame as with the smaller sensors. I understand the preference for keeping it simple, though.
Another way to put it is MFT has two stops more DOF at the same aperture and equivalent field of view than full frame due to the 2.0x crop factor. MFT user for 10 years, and I love that, I like to see more in focus 😊
You are absolutely right. I love the fact that you have found something that works for you. Different things work for different people.
Sensor size DOES NOT affect depth of field. The focal length of the lens and the distance from the subject is what affects depth of field. If you put a 50mm lens on every camera set at an aperture of f/4 and set them at the same distance from the subject, the depth of field will be the same. Yes, how much is included in the frame will differ because of the crop factors, but the depth of field is not directly affected by sensor size.
Instead, with this test, you have set the distance from the subject the same, but are changing the focal length to get equivalent framing.
What you are missing and you will realize it once you do it is Oly mated to 1.2 45 mm zuiko….it will blow your fuji Medium Format images off the water.
Sounds like a great lens to play with!
You can get perfect depth of field with a pin hole camera. But the drawback is the exposure required! Stopping any camera right down will increase the depth of field at the expense of exposure time, obviously. The camera manufacturers are catering for amateurs who are not prepared to use a tripod! A cheap camera on a tripod stopped right down to f22 will give as good a depth of field as anything hand held with a fantastic sensor and lens! Thanks for uploading.
Good point. Thanks for sharing!
Good job. But I am just gonna dislike with how repetitive and long winded before we get to the main content.
That is like General saying to the messenger who rode all night to give him critical information. "I am glad you got me this critical information, but why didn't you get here faster?"
Forget about sensor size for a sec. Look at that beautiful skin tone captured by sony! Way better than the Canon. A huge surprise!
The Sony look terrible to me
Color preference is really a personal thing.