Depth Of Field

HoppyUK said:
That is a masterpiece of utterly pointless garbage, written by somebody keen to show off their knowledge rather than to inform. Those people that understand depth of field should concentrate on making what is essentially a simple concept into one that is readily understood in a meaningful, practical way.

Richard.
Click to expand...
Well, my favourite definition of a circle of confusion is a group photographers sitting in a circle talking about depth of field:lol:

In practical terms, I don't believe that COC really is a '4th factor' at all, it's really nothing more than the changing of a standard, variable to suit different negative sizes. I remember, many years ago, that a Russian camera maker published dof figures that suggested that their lenses produced greater dof than those produced by other manufacturers. The reality is that they simply applied a lower standard and changed the COC to suit.
 
now reading the thread i started im really confused with it all, i know im new at this hobby but there must be a simpler way of explaining this.:shrug:
 
slimboy said:
now reading the thread i started im really confused with it all, i know im new at this hobby but there must be a simpler way of explaining this.:shrug:
Click to expand...
It's a complex subject, just remember that:
1. High f/number (e.g. f/11) produces more dof than a low f/number (e.g. f2.8)
2. Subjects further away have more dof than closer ones
3. wide angle lenses have more dof than telephoto lenses at the same f/number
4. If you view a big print the dof will seem to be less, unless you move further from it (which is why the small image in your viewfinder always seems to have more dof than it actually has)

If you want to learn optical physics then feel free; but most people are happy just to understand the basic principles set out above. Most people just need to understand enough to get the results they're looking for. Sorry if I made the subject sound more complicated.
 
1. High f/number (e.g. f/11) produces more dof than a low f/number (e.g. f2.8)
2. Subjects further away have more dof than closer ones
3. wide angle lenses have more dof than telephoto lenses at the same f/number
4. If you view a big print the dof will seem to be less, unless you move further from it (which is why the small image in your viewfinder always seems to have more dof than it actually has)

If you want to learn optical physics then feel free; but most people are happy just to understand the basic principles set out above. Most people just need to understand enough to get the results they're looking for. Sorry if I made the subject sound more complicated.[/QUOTE]

thank you very much, the basics is all i need but when i read the other posts it just confused me even more.
 
Garry Edwards said:
It's a complex subject, just remember that:
1. High f/number (e.g. f/11) produces more dof than a low f/number (e.g. f2.8)
2. Subjects further away have more dof than closer ones
3. wide angle lenses have more dof than telephoto lenses at the same f/number
4. If you view a big print the dof will seem to be less, unless you move further from it (which is why the small image in your viewfinder always seems to have more dof than it actually has)
Click to expand...

Garry, I think we've done this to death but if anybody else is still interested, for simplicity I would suggest a shorter version of your 1, 2, 3, 4 above.

1) Bigger f/number (eg f/11) produces more depth of field than a low f/number (eg f/2.8).

2) The bigger the image (move closer, use telephoto) produces less dof than a smaller image (move back, use a wide-angle).

This is shorter, and more accurate as focal length, by itself, does not affect depth of field. And there's no need to mention print size as that's a circle of confusion issue which is taken care of by ISO standards.

The other variable can be format size but since this is fixed by the camera, I don't see any real need to mention it, unless (if we must) to say that compacts give lots of depth of field, and full-frame DSLRs give a bit less than cropped format. Leave it there?

Regards,

Richard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top