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
10,522
5,779
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.
So I am pilloried for trying to correct an incorrect definition of a core element of photography that I do by links and examples to world respected outlets?

I have been accused of bullying and mansplaining when all I have done is provided high quality link after link to facts. This might be a dumb forum and any of us might be entitled to our own opinions, however we are not entitled to our own facts.

Depth of field is a function of two factors, 1/ output magnification (how much of your angle of vision is taken up with the image), 2/ the size of the aperture used (the actual hole size not the f stop). The deciding factor of those two metrics is the CoC (how blurred a point can be before you consider it a blob). It is as simple as that. The logical extension of that is that if you make a picture smaller (move away from it) more of it becomes ‘acceptably sharp’. This is so simple to test for yourself it is almost unfathomable that so many of you are so wrong on this core photography issue.

Take a sharp picture, add a little blur to it so on your computer screen it is just not quite sharp. Now look at that same picture still with the blur applied on your phone. It will appear sharp again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EricN

Jethro

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 14, 2018
589
492
As a very junior member of the forum, who comes here partly out of an interest in technical (ie precise) terms, I personally like a lot of the technical-speak - because I learn from it.

I would prefer it, though, if discussions and controversies could be carried out with less heat than seems to have been building up recently. If people disagree with each other, is there really a point in rehearsing the argument/s over and over? If outright trolls (or other species of provocateur) are involved, my attitude is that they are fair game (within the rules of the Forum and General Decorum), but I would have thought that the current controversy was between relatively like-minded and reasonable people. And therefore should be conducted, and ended, in that context.
 

takesome1

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 23, 2013
1,554
214
100
None your business Alaska
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?
My first statement had nothing to do with DoF, rather those individuals in the forum that feel the need to correct others.

I need no source, your images prove my point. The data that gave those two images their DoF was determined in the camera. Not when you enlarged them. Your enlargement only highlighted it. When you choose the size and crop you wanted you were limited by the data collected in the camera.

I need to provide you no proof of my understanding no more than you provided Czardoom any proof he was wrong. You made the initial statement you back it up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,522
5,779
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."
Surely facts matter?

If I said the R5 has 20 stops of DR should I expect that comment to stand? Even if most people don’t care about the DR of the R5?
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,108
4,694
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."
So if someone corrects you, they are being aggressive?

If someone asks you to provide evidence to support your claim, that’s being aggressive?

How about accusing someone of bullying and ‘mansplaining’? Not aggressive, because it was you who did that?
 
Last edited:

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,522
5,779
My first statement had nothing to do with DoF, rather those individuals in the forum that feel the need to correct others.

I need no source, your images prove my point. The data that gave those two images their DoF was determined in the camera. Not when you enlarged them. Your enlargement only highlighted it. When you choose the size and crop you wanted you were limited by the data collected in the camera.

I need to provide you no proof of my understanding no more than you provided Czardoom any proof he was wrong. You made the initial statement you back it up.
I can’t educate somebody who won’t read and understand the links I provide or who wraps their incorrect opinion up in an emus head in the sand. My images prove the depth of field was not set in the camera - because the areas of acceptable focus - have changed! Remember, all my world respected links used the phrase (or something very close to it) area of acceptable focus.

I didn’t make the initial statement! I was replying to unfocused comment saying Dalantech’s comment was correct, it still isn’t.
 

takesome1

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 23, 2013
1,554
214
100
None your business Alaska
So I am pilloried for trying to correct an incorrect definition of a core element of photography that I do by links and examples to world respected outlets?

I have been accused of bullying and mansplaining when all I have done is provided high quality link after link to facts. This might be a dumb forum and any of us might be entitled to our own opinions, however we are not entitled to our own facts.
Everyone is entitled to make incorrect statements. Making your own correct statement to counter is totally acceptable. Correcting someone with just a short blunt sentence is often rude. Politeness seems to get left by the wayside often on this forum.

The DoF arguments earlier were senseless. Debating and telling a seasoned macro photographer that he doesn't understand DoF is silly. DoF is always in the mind of a marco photographer because there is so little.
 

takesome1

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 23, 2013
1,554
214
100
None your business Alaska
I can’t educate somebody who won’t read and understand the links I provide or who wraps their incorrect opinion up in an emus head in the sand. My images prove the depth of field was not set in the camera - because the areas of acceptable focus - have changed! Remember, all my world respected links used the phrase (or something very close to it) area of acceptable focus.

I didn’t make the initial statement! I was replying to unfocused comment saying Dalantech’s comment was correct, it still isn’t.
Yes, semantics and perspective of your point of view. You changed no data. If I view the oof focus picture from across the room it comes back in focus. You changed nothing.
You say I can not be educated and insult, but you choose not to view it from a different point of view.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,108
4,694
Debating and telling a seasoned macro photographer that he doesn't understand DoF is silly. DoF is always in the mind of a marco photographer because there is so little.
He was wrong. Assuming that skill at something automatically confers technical understanding is silly. Muscle energy is always in the mind of Olympic athletes because it is limiting to their performance. How many of those athletes can diagram the glycolytic pathway or understand the role of creatinine in muscle function? I’d guess not many. I cannot run 100 meters in 10 seconds, but I understand muscle physiology. The fact that @Dalantech takes astounding macro images doesn’t mean he automatically understands the technical aspects of DoF any more than Usain Bolt's astounding speed means he automatically understands the sliding filament mechanism.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,522
5,779
Everyone is entitled to make incorrect statements. Making your own correct statement to counter is totally acceptable. Correcting someone with just a short blunt sentence is often rude. Politeness seems to get left by the wayside often on this forum.

The DoF arguments earlier were senseless. Debating and telling a seasoned macro photographer that he doesn't understand DoF is silly. DoF is always in the mind of a marco photographer because there is so little.
I don’t believe we are entitled to make incorrect statements, though we all do on occasion. I have made my own statement to counter the falsifies being put forward and they included examples, photos, and links to world respected sources, for my troubles I was accused of bullying and mansplaining.

Short blunt sentences give rise to less ambiguity, but even if I was short does that deserve name calling in reply? I certainly wasn’t rude. I asked people suggesting an alternative understanding of a core aspect of photography for links to support their ideas, how many did I get? Not one!

I wasn’t involved in the earlier comments in the thread so I should not be roped into any fallout from them. However I have noticed that many people here have strong opinions yet are unwilling to back them up with links or examples, I use outside links and hundreds and hundreds of example images to illustrate exactly what I am talking about. The images I linked to earlier are from a discussion here in 2013, if anybody took the time to read that thread that, I have already linked to, they would see the patience I had explaining exactly the same thing to an interested member over 8 years ago.

Just because somebody is an expert in a field does not mean they have a deep understanding of the physics behind it! I know many professional potters, experts, who could‘the make a glaze if their life depended on it.

A while ago we had two ‘experts’ on macro arguing about crop cameras and dof advantage etc etc endlessly. I took a few minutes to actually test the suggestions of both and proved to myself and anybody else interested what the truth was. There is no dof crop advantage when shooting macro.
 

takesome1

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 23, 2013
1,554
214
100
None your business Alaska
He was wrong. Assuming that skill at something automatically confers understanding is silly. Muscle energy is always in the mind of Olympic athletes because it is limiting to their performance. How many of those athletes can diagram the glycolytic pathway or understand the role of creatinine in muscle function? I’d guess not many. I cannot run 100 meters in 10 seconds, but I understand muscle physiology. The fact that @Dalantech takes astounding macro images doesn’t mean he automatically understands the technical aspects of DoF any more than Usain Bolt's astounding speed means he automatically understands the sliding filament mechanism.
He was wrong on several points. Not having understanding on certain points does not indicate a lack of understanding on all points. For DoF I would think anyone that has been successful has a good working understanding of it.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,522
5,779
Yes, semantics and perspective of your point of view. You changed no data. If I view the oof focus picture from across the room it comes back in focus. You changed nothing.
You say I can not be educated and insult, but you choose not to view it from a different point of view.
I changed nothing, but you did. By moving you changed the very aspects that define depth of field, the size of the picture in your field of view. Remember, two things impact dof, the hole the picture was taken through (aperture), nobody can change that post exposure, BUT the second part is how much of your field of view is the resulting image taking up. If you walk backwards, or forwards, that field of view changes and so the amount of ‘acceptable focus’ changes too.

This isn’t ‘my point of view’ it is the definition of the term depth of field. If I answer a maths sum correctly but you don’t do I have to ‘see the sum‘ from your point of view? No, I got it right and you got it wrong. I take no pleasure from the fact you got it wrong but I have two choices, work through it with you in the hope you get it and get the sum right or ignore you and go outside to play.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: EricN

takesome1

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 23, 2013
1,554
214
100
None your business Alaska
I don’t believe we are entitled to make incorrect statements, though we all do on occasion. I have made my own statement to counter the falsifies being put forward and they included examples, photos, and links to world respected sources, for my troubles I was accused of bullying and mansplaining.

Short blunt sentences give rise to less ambiguity, but even if I was short does that deserve name calling in reply? I certainly wasn’t rude. I asked people suggesting an alternative understanding of a core aspect of photography for links to support their ideas, how many did I get? Not one!
Over the last few years you have corrected my statements, sometimes the correction had nothing to do with the statement being made or subject. On this forum it gets to the point there is a discussion I want to be involved in, spend a few minutes typing a post and just delete it because I know someone will correct think something in it isn't just right.
There is no dof crop advantage when shooting macro.
This is a correct statement.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,108
4,694
He was wrong on several points. Not having understanding on certain points does not indicate a lack of understanding on all points. For DoF I would think anyone that has been successful has a good working understanding of it.
I did not suggest he doesn’t have a good working understanding of DoF. I stated that he appears to not understand the circle of confusion. He claims that DoF is fixed at image capture, which is wrong because that ignores the role of CoC in determining DoF.

I’d say I was still waiting for someone to provide reputable support for CoC being irrelevant for DoF, but I know that’s about as likely as someone providing reputable support for the earth being flat.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: EricN

takesome1

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 23, 2013
1,554
214
100
None your business Alaska
I changed nothing, but you did. By moving you changed the very aspects that define depth of field, the size of the picture in your field of view. Remember, two things impact dof, the hole the picture was taken through (aperture), nobody can change that post exposure, BUT the second part is how much of your field of view is the resulting image taking up. If you walk backwards, or forwards, that field of view changes and so the amount of ‘acceptable focus’ changes too.
You did crop the picture.
You are not saying anything incorrect.
But you are refusing to acknowledge or consider my point.
When you crop, print and decide how far away to view the picture, the DoF for that picture was already set inside the camera.
You could say that the DoF is already set for all the various combinations you decide.

This isn’t ‘my point of view’ it is the definition of the term depth of field. If I answer a maths sum correctly but you don’t do I have to ‘see the sum‘ from your point of view? No, I got it right and you got it wrong. I take no pleasure from the fact you got it wrong but I have two choices, work through it with you in the hope you get it and get the sum right or ignore you and go outside to play.
Was that necessary?
 

takesome1

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 23, 2013
1,554
214
100
None your business Alaska
I’d say I was still waiting for someone to provide reputable support for CoC being irrelevant for DoF, but I know that’s about as likely as someone providing reputable support for the earth being flat.
You are in Boston, were you not a Kyrie Irving fan when he played for the Celtics?
He may have changed his mind about the earth being flat.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,108
4,694
You could say that the DoF is already set for all the various combinations you decide.
So the DoF is set to a wide range of possible future values at moment of image capture? That’s like saying an analog clock is set to a wide range of possible future times the moment its battery dies. Nonsense.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,108
4,694
You are in Boston, were you not a Kyrie Irving fan when he played for the Celtics?
He may have changed his mind about the earth being flat.
Regardless of his former or current point of view, the earth is shaped like the orange ball he throws so effectively.

I did hear Neil deGrasse Tyson poke fun at him during a lecture a few years ago.
 

takesome1

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 23, 2013
1,554
214
100
None your business Alaska
So the DoF is set to a wide range of possible future values at moment of image capture? That’s like saying an analog clock is set to a wide range of possible future times the moment its battery dies. Nonsense.
lol, I am sorry but that comparison was total nonsense.

Here is a link for flat earth backup:

I think its bed time and have had enough fun for one night.