That is a correct statement and illustrates my point that the E-1 does
have greater depth of field at equivalent fields of view and print size.
Chuck Norcutt
Richard Ociepka wrote:
> Bill Pearce wrote:
>
>>
>>There was a lot of stuff about small sensor cameras having greater dof than
>>film. That's simply because the lenses are very short, and can give that
>>illusion.
>>
>>Bill Pearce
>
>
> The lens on my C-750 is only 6.3 mm at the widest angle and 63 mm full
> telephoto.
> The sensor is so small the image looks like it has a huge DOF.
> If we could blow it up and retain enough resolution we would see that
> the DOF isn't all that large.
>
> This subject can make your head spin.
> The wrong assumption is that everyone is thinking in the same way.
>
> It will depend if you view a cropped image from the 35 mm shot that will
> equal the 4/3 sensor shot.
> It will also depend if you change positions so to frame both images the
> same.
>
> Here is more to add to the confusion.
> http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/oly-e/any-lens.html
> Half way down under Depth of field.
>
> “When any lens of a focal length F is mounted on a Four Thirds body and
> stepped down to aperture (F-number) A, its effective depth of field will
> be the same as that of a lens with focal length 2F stepped down to
> aperture 2A, and working on a film camera.”
>
> “If you mount a 50 mm, F/1.4 lens on the E-1 and use it wide open, the
> DOF will be the same as when you mount a 100 mm, F/2.8 lens on a film
> camera…The light-gathering capability is still defined by the actual
> aperture of F/1.4.”
>
> Dick
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|