A BSI APS-C EOS R camera is coming in the second half of 2022 [CR2]

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,517
5,771
Oh boy! We've been through this so many times. I'd like to know what, other than lens aperture, distance to subject and focal length of the lens, is going to affect depth of field? Real depth of field, not perception of depth of field.

In this example the depth of field does not change.



What changes is, as the image is enlarged, it is easier for the eye to perceive the lack of focus. The reverse is true as well, the smaller the image size the sharper the image is going to appear to the human eye. But, the actual depth of field never changes, it's simply that the larger the image, the easier it is for the human eye to see that an object is not in focus. And, yes, viewing distance will make a difference in perceived depth of field. A billboard viewed from the street may appear sharp, but when viewed from three feet away, any lack of sharpness will become apparent. Depth of field doesn't magically change, it is simply a limitation of our own biology.

This is a correct statement:
You are so wrong on this it is painful. As it the statement you say is correct, it isn’t.

Depth of field is determined by two things after you have defined the ‘acceptable focus part’. CoC defines the acceptable focus, the end result subject magnification and the size of the aperture (not the f stop) determine the dof.

Now because subject magnification changes the dof, distance from the print or screen also changes the dof.
 

Jethro

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 14, 2018
585
489
Thing is, does it really matter? Most photographers I know never think about it, or need to. Skills developed over time give us an ability to know what works. We just want to enjoy our hobby or profession. Always good to discuss these things though.
And of course, in that sense it doesn't matter.

My own perception is that I get a much better DoF with a FF sensor (EOS R) than I did with lower MP DSLRs (FF and APS-C). But that probably also reflects the fact that I'm (at some level at least) a better photographer now than I was with those DSLRs a few years ago, and I have access to a different (and faster) selection of lenses. But, for others, DoF is something which can be objectively evaluated, and used as a point of comparison with other set-ups - and that's true too. We're all different.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,400
4,029
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Thing is, does it really matter? Most photographers I know never think about it, or need to. Skills developed over time give us an ability to know what works...
Yes, and I shouldn't allow myself to be drawn into this meaningless discussion. Same old flawed arguments and mansplaining from the same people. Same links to pseudo-science. Now, depth of field has become all about perception. I only need to take off my glasses and suddenly depth of field increases because everything looks to be of equal sharpness.

Not worth my time explaining. @Distinctly Average and @Dalantech you are still correct and don't be intimidated by the bullies on this forum who say otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalantech

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,517
5,771
I think the argument may be around accepted measures of DoF, which do take into account perceived DoF (and a standardised size etc), and which are useful if you are making comparisons between (eg) different sensor types and/or crops.
Depth of field has a clear definition. People can argue about how they understand the definition as much as they like, they can misrepresent the actual definition if they like and they can make up their own definitions if they like, but they are still wrong.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,517
5,771
Yes, and I shouldn't allow myself to be drawn into this meaningless discussion. Same old flawed arguments and mansplaining from the same people. Same links to pseudo-science. Now, depth of field has become all about perception. I only need to take off my glasses and suddenly depth of field increases because everything looks to be of equal sharpness.

Not worth my time explaining. @Distinctly Average and @Dalantech you are still correct and don't be intimidated by the bullies on this forum who say otherwise.
Why be like that? Show a definitive link to a trusted source that doesn’t include ‘acceptable sharpness’ or similar in the definition of depth of field.

” "Acceptably sharp focus" is defined using a property called the circle of confusion.”

”The depth of field in an image is the distance between the parts that appear in focus.”

”Depth of field refers to the range of distance that appears acceptably sharp.”

If you don’t trust Wikipedia or the BBC show me a link that you do trust. I’m not bullying or mansplaning anything, I am telling you your understanding of the definition of depth of field is 100% incorrect.
 
Last edited:

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,517
5,771
Thing is, does it really matter? Most photographers I know never think about it, or need to. Skills developed over time give us an ability to know what works. We just want to enjoy our hobby or profession. Always good to discuss these things though.
Depends really. If you are looking for a definition then being told the wrong one is unhelpful. If you are trying to understand the physics of the thing then getting the correct answer seems helpful. If you are an uninterested photographer who just likes taking pictures and gets the results you want then no, it doesn’t matter. If you are shooting different formats and want a consistent ‘look’ to your images then it can help.

But whatever the importance of the facts to any individual being told completely incorrect information doesn’t help anybody.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,052
4,615
Yes, and I shouldn't allow myself to be drawn into this meaningless discussion. Same old flawed arguments and mansplaining from the same people. Same links to pseudo-science. Now, depth of field has become all about perception. I only need to take off my glasses and suddenly depth of field increases because everything looks to be of equal sharpness.

Not worth my time explaining. @Distinctly Average and @Dalantech you are still correct and don't be intimidated by the bullies on this forum who say otherwise.
Translation: I can't provide an answer to a simply and directly phrased request for an alternate yet correct definition. I provided definitions from Wikipedia and the Oxford Dictionary that directly contradict your statements. You cry bullying and intimidation – does a dictionary definition scare you?

"All about perception" – no, but if you want to totally misrepresent my statements to try and make yourself feel correct, well, that's all too common on the internet.

It would be refreshing for someone to just admit they are wrong when their 'opinion' is contradicted by pretty much every reputable source. Not that I expect any such thing. Flat Earthers are completely convinced that they're correct, as are anti-vaxxers.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,517
5,771
I understand DOF. The implication above is that if you enlarge an image the DOF will change, and by enlarge the implication was an image already taken just enlarged for print.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,052
4,615
I understand DOF. The implication above is that if you enlarge an image the DOF will change, and by enlarge the implication was an image already taken just enlarged for print.
Not an implication, a fact.

"Enlargement: The larger the image is reproduced, the shallower the DOF. The smaller the reproduction, the longer the DOF. This factor is similar to the viewing distance described above. Reproduce a blurry spot on a giant highway billboard and it’s a huge, blurry spot. Reproduce it on a tiny wallet-sized print and it might look like a single point of light."

From:

So yes, simply enlarging an image changes the DoF.

@Distinctly Average and @unfocused, you might want to read the full series from B&H on DoF Basics. Maybe you'll learn something.
 

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
347
733
Ah, the joys of this forum! For someone not in the fight, it is funny to see the disagreements are merely ones of semantics. Both sides understand what is happening in terms of how DOF affects photos - but they don't seem to realize that they DO both understand, but are merely looking at the definition in different ways.

As unfocused wrote, "But, the actual depth of field never changes, it's simply that the larger the image, the easier it is for the human eye to see that an object is not in focus. And, yes, viewing distance will make a difference in perceived depth of field."

So, he understands that, as the photo is enlarged, out of focus areas will appear more out of focus. That's the important part, and he gets it.

So, he separates the actual camera settings and the actual image from the perception of that image at different sizes. Does it really matter that he separates the two? Does it really matter that his definition does not match Neuro's , or Wikipedia's - as long as everyone does understand what is happening?

If everyone understands what is happening correctly, then it becomes a matter of differing semantics. Not worth all the arguing...unless, of course, being "RIGHT" is more important than giving accurate information, rather than accurate definitions. And, yes, there is a difference between accurate information and an accurate definition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,052
4,615
If everyone understands what is happening correctly, then it becomes a matter of differing semantics. Not worth all the arguing...unless, of course, being "RIGHT" is more important than giving accurate information, rather than accurate definitions. And, yes, there is a difference between accurate information and an accurate definition.
IF. But that's not the case. As a very simple demonstration, @unfocused stated that this statement by @Dalantech is correct:
Depth of field, detail, and magnification are fixed as soon as you press the shutter release.

But, it is not correct. Depth of field is not fixed when the shutter button is pressed. To claim that a false statement is true is not giving accurate information. And he has declined to give any sort of definition. Those aren't semantics, unless claiming the earth is flat is just a semantic distinction from it being (roughly) spherical.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,517
5,771
Ah, the joys of this forum! For someone not in the fight, it is funny to see the disagreements are merely ones of semantics. Both sides understand what is happening in terms of how DOF affects photos - but they don't seem to realize that they DO both understand, but are merely looking at the definition in different ways.

As unfocused wrote, "But, the actual depth of field never changes, it's simply that the larger the image, the easier it is for the human eye to see that an object is not in focus. And, yes, viewing distance will make a difference in perceived depth of field."

So, he understands that, as the photo is enlarged, out of focus areas will appear more out of focus. That's the important part, and he gets it.

So, he separates the actual camera settings and the actual image from the perception of that image at different sizes. Does it really matter that he separates the two? Does it really matter that his definition does not match Neuro's , or Wikipedia's - as long as everyone does understand what is happening?

If everyone understands what is happening correctly, then it becomes a matter of differing semantics. Not worth all the arguing...unless, of course, being "RIGHT" is more important than giving accurate information, rather than accurate definitions. And, yes, there is a difference between accurate information and an accurate definition.
As I said, to some people it matters, to others it doesn’t. But for people that do want to understand isn’t it incumbent on us to present the correct definition of a term?

If you are of the opinion that DoF is set when you take the image you are wrong, that is a little bit more serious than arguing semantics.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,400
4,029
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Ah, the joys of this forum! For someone not in the fight, it is funny to see the disagreements are merely ones of semantics. Both sides understand what is happening in terms of how DOF affects photos - but they don't seem to realize that they DO both understand, but are merely looking at the definition in different ways.

As unfocused wrote, "But, the actual depth of field never changes, it's simply that the larger the image, the easier it is for the human eye to see that an object is not in focus. And, yes, viewing distance will make a difference in perceived depth of field."

So, he understands that, as the photo is enlarged, out of focus areas will appear more out of focus. That's the important part, and he gets it.

So, he separates the actual camera settings and the actual image from the perception of that image at different sizes. Does it really matter that he separates the two? Does it really matter that his definition does not match Neuro's , or Wikipedia's - as long as everyone does understand what is happening?

If everyone understands what is happening correctly, then it becomes a matter of differing semantics. Not worth all the arguing...unless, of course, being "RIGHT" is more important than giving accurate information, rather than accurate definitions. And, yes, there is a difference between accurate information and an accurate definition.

Thank you. This is why I really want to exit this discussion. We are splitting hairs and I have no doubt that all the participants understand the concepts. I really have tried to avoid these discussions of late. I was drawn into this one because I felt that @Distinctly Average and @Dalantech were being attacked unfairly and I wanted to defend their statements, which are far more right than wrong. I am trying my best to follow a guiding principle that I will not initiate these discussions, but I will defend those with less experience on this forum who inadvertently wander into them.

My rationale really has more to do with trying to make this more of a welcoming place. There are idiots who join this forum simply to make ridiculous statements and they deserve all the venom that they get. But there are others who get bullied for posts that are essentially correct. Over the years, I've seen many well-meaning contributors (including some very high caliber photographers) driven away because a handful of participants scour the site looking for arguments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Distinctly Average

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,052
4,615
...I have no doubt that all the participants understand the concepts.
When a participant makes incorrect statements and is unable or unwilling to back them up with any sources, there is significant cause for doubt that all participants understand the concepts.

I should add that I have enormous respect for @Dalantech as a photographer and as a master of lighting for macro photography. But just because someone is an expert in one area of a field, it does not automatically follow that they are an expert in all areas of that field.
 

EricN

EOS 90D
Aug 10, 2021
129
227
Yes, because you and others continue failing to grasp the concept and persist in posting incorrect information.


Depth of field is perception-dependent. DoF is commonly defined as, “The distance between the nearest and the farthest objects that are in acceptably sharp focus in an image.” The Oxford Dictionary makes it even more evident: “The distance between the nearest and the furthest objects that give an image judged to be in focus in a camera.”
These definitions explain how you can have pan focus, without a special lens. Everything is not in focus if looked closely, but it is acceptably sharp when viewed normally.
 

takesome1

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 23, 2013
1,549
205
100
None your business Alaska
As I said, to some people it matters, to others it doesn’t. But for people that do want to understand isn’t it incumbent on us to present the correct definition of a term?

If you are of the opinion that DoF is set when you take the image you are wrong, that is a little bit more serious than arguing semantics.
It is not enjoyable for a participant in a discussion to worry that he may misuse one word or not fully describe a particular item without the scrutiny of those who wish to correct their statement. This type of correction can be taken by some as rude, especially when it seems that individual is just looking to correct your statement without offering anything else to the conversation.

On another point you are incorrect, and you can decide if this is semantics. The DoF is set when you take the image, in as much as what others have said, you can not change what has been saved in the camera. You can manipulate the picture, you can change your view and distance and what appears in focus may change with your view. At whatever size you print or the distance you decide to view the acceptably sharp focus of the items in an image were set for your selected distance and size when you took the picture.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,517
5,771
It is not enjoyable for a participant in a discussion to worry that he may misuse one word or not fully describe a particular item without the scrutiny of those who wish to correct their statement. This type of correction can be taken by some as rude, especially when it seems that individual is just looking to correct your statement without offering anything else to the conversation.

On another point you are incorrect, and you can decide if this is semantics. The DoF is set when you take the image, in as much as what others have said, you can not change what has been saved in the camera. You can manipulate the picture, you can change your view and distance and what appears in focus may change with your view. At whatever size you print or the distance you decide to view the acceptably sharp focus of the items in an image were set for your selected distance and size when you took the picture.
We aren’t discussing the misuse of a single word we are disagreeing on the basic understanding of a core aspect of photography, depth of field.

If you believe I am incorrect find me a link from a single reputable source that supports your understanding of the term.

Alternatively explain to me why the level of “acceptable focus” (the very definition of depth of field by all reputable sources) changes in these two images?
F4F7F401-EC67-462F-8CF3-2B5A608C779B.jpeg

425D4D58-856F-40FB-9989-709F6ECB281D.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: EricN

takesome1

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 23, 2013
1,549
205
100
None your business Alaska
My rationale really has more to do with trying to make this more of a welcoming place. There are idiots who join this forum simply to make ridiculous statements and they deserve all the venom that they get. But there are others who get bullied for posts that are essentially correct. Over the years, I've seen many well-meaning contributors (including some very high caliber photographers) driven away because a handful of participants scour the site looking for arguments.
Its a toxic environment when there is always someone looking to either correct your grammar or just twist the meaning of what you say to start an argument.
You have a good dream of what forums should be.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,400
4,029
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Its a toxic environment when there is always someone looking to either correct your grammar or just twist the meaning of what you say to start an argument.
You have a good dream of what forums should be.
Well, I admit I probably fail more than I succeed, but I certainly agree with your first statement.

Many times people wrap their aggression in the cloak of claiming they are just trying to educate others. But, most of the time, people don't need or desire that "education."
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,052
4,615
On another point you are incorrect, and you can decide if this is semantics. The DoF is set when you take the image, in as much as what others have said, you can not change what has been saved in the camera. You can manipulate the picture, you can change your view and distance and what appears in focus may change with your view. At whatever size you print or the distance you decide to view the acceptably sharp focus of the items in an image were set for your selected distance and size when you took the picture.
Sorry, but that’s not semantics, it’s just wrong. ‘Acceptable sharpness’ changes with enlargement, it is not fixed at the time of image capture. A slightly OOF image appears sharp when viewed at small size or large distance. Thus, what is ‘within the DoF’ decreases as an image is enlarged.




Its a toxic environment when there is always someone looking to either correct your grammar or just twist the meaning of what you say to start an argument.
You have a good dream of what forums should be.
Correcting a false statement is not correcting grammar or twisting a meaning. If I said image sensors are made primarily of magnesium alloy, that would be false and I’d hope someone would correct me. When asked to provide support for a statement like that, I would fail. Because it’s not true.

I posted a statement from an article on the B&H website clearly stating that enlargement of an image results in a shallower DoF. You are claiming that it does not. Can you support your claim with external source information?