July 23, 2018, 01:16:26 PM

Author Topic: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor  (Read 125508 times)

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6934
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #225 on: February 28, 2014, 10:13:11 AM »
  One of the most efective uses of wide angle lenses (and particularly ultrawide lenses) is with extremely close subjects in the foreground, taking advantage of the perspective distortion that results from close subject placement to emphasize that subject within the wide FoV.  In that case, I want the foreground subject to be as sharp as possible (although there's a practical limit on that with the resolution delivered by most ultrawide lenses, particularly if the subject is not at the center of the frame).

That is one very cool and under appreciated uses for shift in the TS-E's, shift so that the important part is covered by the center (or close to) of the image circle. It also works with projection distortion, you can place a person on the extreme edge of a 17mm TS-E shot and if you have shifted they have no distortion.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #225 on: February 28, 2014, 10:13:11 AM »

Kit.

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 200
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #226 on: February 28, 2014, 10:29:13 AM »
Yes, I've added it in the edition of my post after the one you are quoting. Still, the difference in D alone is not enough to explain the difference in acceptable DoF of wide-angle and telephoto shots.

The difference in DoF based on D alone between 17mm f/4 and 200mm f/4 is massive.  17mm f/4 with a subject 20 feet away yields a DoF extending from 14 feet in front of the subject to infinity, whereas 200mm f/4 with a subject at 20 feet yields a DoF that extends approxiamtely 4 inches on either side of the subject.
That's for the calculations based on the same circle of confusion, c (0.03mm). These setups have different magnifications, M (1/28 for 200mm, and 1/350 for 17mm), and as c = d * M, that gives us d200mm = 0.84mm and d17mm = 10.5mm. That's a huge difference in d.

If we require the 1mm d for our 17mm image, the DoF will extend 6ft, and not 14, on the front, and 18ft, and not infinity, on the back.

I also have to disagree with the idea that, "d acceptable for shooting most "17mm" subjects (sometimes up to centimeters) is unacceptable for shooting most "200mm" subjects (usually well below a millimeter, as we need to resolve hair/fabric structure)."  One of the most efective uses of wide angle lenses (and particularly ultrawide lenses) is with extremely close subjects in the foreground, taking advantage of the perspective distortion that results from close subject placement to emphasize that subject within the wide FoV.  In that case, I want the foreground subject to be as sharp as possible (although there's a practical limit on that with the resolution delivered by most ultrawide lenses, particularly if the subject is not at the center of the frame).
That's what we use tilt for.

However, in your calculations above it's considered OK to have a dot in the front plane of "DoF" rendered as a 1cm blob over the plane of focus.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6934
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #227 on: February 28, 2014, 10:33:46 AM »

Depth of field is affected by two things: aperture and subject distance.

No, dof is affected by two things, aperture size (not number) and subject magnification.

A 17mm and 200mm shot from the same place with the same aperture value have different dof, your statement says they would be the same.
DoF is affected by 3 things:
1. entrance pupil ("aperture") size - D,
2. distance from the plane of focus (i.e. from the plane of an object we are shooting) to the entrance pupil - L,
3. diameter of the acceptable unsharpness measured in the plane of focus (i.e. as a property of the object we are shooting) - d.

If lf is front DoF and lb is back DoF, then:

(L-lf) / D = lf / d
(L+lb) / D = lb / d


If lf and lb are much smaller than L (as in macro), then lb ~= lf ~= L * d / D.

That can be derived from simple geometrical optics if we study where rays passing through a point in the front or the back DoF plane cross the plane of focus and the entrance pupil plane. No information about what happens behind the lens entrance pupil (except the information that is already contained in the choice of d) is actually needed or relevant.

The difference in the DoF of 17mm and 200mm lenses (other than from the obvious difference in D) comes from the fact that d acceptable for shooting most "17mm" subjects (sometimes up to centimeters) is unacceptable for shooting most "200mm" subjects (usually well below a millimeter, as we need to resolve hair/fabric structure).

As for this, aside from the corrected error, I would again say DOF is created by two factors, aperture size, not number (I have been consistent with that) and magnification. What then defines the subjective aspect of dof is the decision on CoC size as related to reproduction size (magnification), viewing distance (magnification), and viewer acuity (taken to be "average").

There is no definitive size for CoC, and no definitive DOF, they are subjective. Mostly CoC is taking some of the subjectivity out of the the equation by normalising different formats, print sizes, and viewing distances and using "average eyesight" to do it.

From a practical point of view CoC figures are moot, people never view from "the correct" distance, they don't intuitively think as they move back and forth whist looking at a print or screen the DoF is changing, but it is.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6934
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #228 on: February 28, 2014, 10:39:40 AM »
Yes, I've added it in the edition of my post after the one you are quoting. Still, the difference in D alone is not enough to explain the difference in acceptable DoF of wide-angle and telephoto shots.

The difference in DoF based on D alone between 17mm f/4 and 200mm f/4 is massive.  17mm f/4 with a subject 20 feet away yields a DoF extending from 14 feet in front of the subject to infinity, whereas 200mm f/4 with a subject at 20 feet yields a DoF that extends approxiamtely 4 inches on either side of the subject.
That's for the calculations based on the same circle of confusion, c (0.03mm). These setups have different magnifications, M (1/28 for 200mm, and 1/350 for 17mm), and as c = d * M, that gives us d200mm = 0.84mm and d17mm = 10.5mm. That's a huge difference in d.

If we require the 1mm d for our 17mm image, the DoF will extend 6ft, and not 14, on the front, and 18ft, and not infinity, on the back.

I also have to disagree with the idea that, "d acceptable for shooting most "17mm" subjects (sometimes up to centimeters) is unacceptable for shooting most "200mm" subjects (usually well below a millimeter, as we need to resolve hair/fabric structure)."  One of the most efective uses of wide angle lenses (and particularly ultrawide lenses) is with extremely close subjects in the foreground, taking advantage of the perspective distortion that results from close subject placement to emphasize that subject within the wide FoV.  In that case, I want the foreground subject to be as sharp as possible (although there's a practical limit on that with the resolution delivered by most ultrawide lenses, particularly if the subject is not at the center of the frame).
That's what we use tilt for.

However, in your calculations above it's considered OK to have a dot in the front plane of "DoF" rendered as a 1cm blob over the plane of focus.

If the aperture value is consistent crop the 17mm image to the 200mm image and you then have the same magnification, but very different dof. Change the aperture value to give yourself the same aperture area and crop and the DOF is the same.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4016
  • Master of Pain
    • My Personal Work
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #229 on: February 28, 2014, 10:44:53 AM »
Here are some good articles from the Luminous Landscape related to this discussion:

A very technical article about this subject:
Full sized vs. Crop Sensors

A nice photo comparison to bust a myth about DOF and lens length:
Do Wide Angle Lenses Really Have Greater Depth of Field Than Telephotos?

Micheal's latest musings on the subject:
The Full Frame Myth
CPS Score: 111 points, those 0 and 1 point items really add up

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ***************
  • Posts: 22846
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #230 on: February 28, 2014, 10:52:29 AM »
As for this, aside from the corrected error, I would again say DOF is created by two factors, aperture size, not number (I have been consistent with that) and magnification. What then defines the subjective aspect of dof is the decision on CoC size as related to reproduction size (magnification), viewing distance (magnification), and viewer acuity (taken to be "average").

There is no definitive size for CoC, and no definitive DOF, they are subjective. Mostly CoC is taking some of the subjectivity out of the the equation by normalising different formats, print sizes, and viewing distances and using "average eyesight" to do it.

From a practical point of view CoC figures are moot, people never view from "the correct" distance, they don't intuitively think as they move back and forth whist looking at a print or screen the DoF is changing, but it is.

Exactly - which is why we ignore d in the above.
EOS 1D X, EOS M6, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2944
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #231 on: February 28, 2014, 11:04:34 AM »
Why must I be on lsd to understand this concept?

Here are some good articles from the Luminous Landscape related to this discussion:

A very technical article about this subject:
Full sized vs. Crop Sensors

A nice photo comparison to bust a myth about DOF and lens length:
Do Wide Angle Lenses Really Have Greater Depth of Field Than Telephotos?

Micheal's latest musings on the subject:
The Full Frame Myth
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L-> 85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm -> 85mm f/1.2L mkii

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #231 on: February 28, 2014, 11:04:34 AM »

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4016
  • Master of Pain
    • My Personal Work
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #232 on: February 28, 2014, 11:07:37 AM »
Why must I be on lsd to understand this concept?

Here are some good articles from the Luminous Landscape related to this discussion:

A very technical article about this subject:
Full sized vs. Crop Sensors

A nice photo comparison to bust a myth about DOF and lens length:
Do Wide Angle Lenses Really Have Greater Depth of Field Than Telephotos?

Micheal's latest musings on the subject:
The Full Frame Myth
LOL, I feel the same way!  I've always thought the "circle of confusion" was appropriately named!
CPS Score: 111 points, those 0 and 1 point items really add up

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ***************
  • Posts: 22846
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #233 on: February 28, 2014, 11:18:05 AM »
Micheal's latest musings on the subject:
The Full Frame Myth

Interesting musings.  His viewpoint seems to be that current APS-C sensors can deliver IQ on par with FF sensors in many situations - and that's true.  But the converse is that FF at it's worst is equivalent to APS-C, and in many situations, it's better. 

Also, aside from the IQ considerations, can I get DoF from an APS-C sensor equivalent to f/1.2 on a FF sensor with the same framing and perspective?  No.  Likewise, a significant portion of my shots are at ISO 3200 or higher, and APS-C is significantly inferior to FF in terms of noise at those high ISO settings. 

From a practical level, we buy cameras and not sensors.  There is not an APS-C dSLR that can deliver 12 fps or has the most advanced AF and metering systems that Canon has to offer.

So I keep coming back to my earlier point:  the primary advantage of APS-C sensors, and the cameras in which they are used, is that they cost less.
EOS 1D X, EOS M6, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Kerry B

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 225
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #234 on: February 28, 2014, 11:43:19 AM »
With good light and a decent lens a crop sensor such as the one on the 7D can produce excellent images. Little owl for example.
Canon 5d mkiii, Canon 7d mkii, Canon 300f2.8 IS mkii, Canon 70-200f2.8 Mkii IS, Canon 100-400 mkii, Canon24-105f4, Canon 1.4 mkiii extender and 2 x extender mkiii

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4016
  • Master of Pain
    • My Personal Work
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #235 on: February 28, 2014, 11:46:12 AM »
With good light and a decent lens a crop sensor such as the one on the 7D can produce excellent images. Little owl for example.
I would agree 100%  and excellent shot!  Having had crop sensors longer than FF, most of my favorite shots are from crop sensors, too :)
CPS Score: 111 points, those 0 and 1 point items really add up

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6934
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #236 on: February 28, 2014, 11:48:47 AM »
Why must I be on lsd to understand this concept?

You don't. Look at these three images and tell me what you don't get.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6934
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #237 on: February 28, 2014, 11:49:43 AM »
With good light and a decent lens a crop sensor such as the one on the 7D can produce excellent images. Little owl for example.

I don't believe anybody has said otherwise.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #237 on: February 28, 2014, 11:49:43 AM »

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2944
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #238 on: February 28, 2014, 12:02:38 PM »
Why must I be on lsd to understand this concept?

You don't. Look at these three images and tell me what you don't get.

I saw that before.. but what really threw me today is the one guy claiming that focal length doesn't affect dof... maybe I read it wrong.. but ugh.
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L-> 85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm -> 85mm f/1.2L mkii

Kit.

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 200
Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #239 on: February 28, 2014, 12:03:33 PM »
I would again say DOF is created by two factors, aperture size, not number (I have been consistent with that) and magnification. What then defines the subjective aspect of dof is the decision on CoC size as related to reproduction size (magnification), viewing distance (magnification), and viewer acuity (taken to be "average").
My idea was to get rid of parameters depending on sensor format  (magnification and CoC size) in the formula for DoF, and at the same time to replace CoC with something that has physical sense in the scene we are capturing. My approach is not necessarily the best way to calculate DoF, but is a very good one to understand it. In particular, it easily shows when cropping reduces the perceived DoF, and when it doesn't.

There is no definitive size for CoC, and no definitive DOF, they are subjective. Mostly CoC is taking some of the subjectivity out of the the equation by normalising different formats, print sizes, and viewing distances and using "average eyesight" to do it.
That's the main problem with CoC. It has no easily understandable meaning in the context of the original subject, and it has no easily understandable meaning in the context of the final product either.

Divide CoC size by magnification - and you get a value that has such meaning.

It shouldn't be interpreted as if sensor-side resolution limits have no meaning at all. Of course, you cannot resolve a feature of an original object that is smaller than pixel size divided by magnification. But it's not a DoF problem.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« Reply #239 on: February 28, 2014, 12:03:33 PM »