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

[EricN]

Lets get back on topic and argue weather or not there will be an R7 and/or Rebel Rf.

 

[takesome1]

While that’s probably true, when on one side you have fact backed up with information from multiple, reputable sources and on the other side you have statements made with no attempt to provide external supporting information and an ‘I’m going to take my marbles and leave because I don’t want to hear an explanation’ attitude, it’s quite evident who “won” even if those making incorrect and unsupported claims never actually capitulate.

You quoted Bob Atkins earlier, here is a quote from his website: "DOF is at best a "fuzzy" concept, depending on subjective judgement of what appears to be sharp."

Depth of Field Calculator

Wouldn't it be hard win an argument using facts to prove a "fuzzy" concept that depends on subjective judgment?

 

[SaP34US]

Over at the DP Review forum, a site that is a lot more toxic than this one, there are threads where people are wondering why forum participation is down. Some of them think it is just because more people are shooting with cell phones and not the increase of idiots who will say things, while hiding behind a keyboard, that they would never say in public.

Like you I absolutely hate getting into some of theses discussions because people will believe whatever they want and it is easy to rig a "test' for what they want to prove. Plus I have seen a lot of shooters driven out of macro by a community that is so hyper focused on absolute image sharpness that they cannot see the picture because the pixels are in the way. I have actually decided not to focus stack just to prove the pixel obsessed wrong

Pollen Covered Mining Bee by John Kimbler, on Flickr

Wow is that a bee with pollen on its antenna and nose?
The RF crop sensor sounds like with any luck it should be a great camera.

 

[takesome1]

Lets get back on topic and argue weather or not there will be an R7 and/or Rebel Rf.

My guess is that Canon will release the body that they believe will make them the most profit.
My first digital camera was the D50, it was billed as a bridge between FF and Rebel series.
I am sure Canon will have some kind of similar strategy to draw people in and then get them to upgrade.

 

[kaihp]

My first digital camera was the D50, it was billed as a bridge between FF and Rebel series.

Are you talking about the 50D launched in 2008? - 15Mpix and horrible horrible chromatic noise. I picked it up as a replacement for my 2004-vintage 10D (6Mpix) which had vastly better IQ in my book. Too bad the 10D could only do ~1fps in RAW though I kept waiting for a 7D2 and eventually caved in to a 5D3 in 2012. The IQ jump was fantastic between the 50D and the 5D3.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You quoted Bob Atkins earlier, here is a quote from his website: "DOF is at best a "fuzzy" concept, depending on subjective judgement of what appears to be sharp."

Depth of Field Calculator

Wouldn't it be hard win an argument using facts to prove a "fuzzy" concept that depends on subjective judgment?

Not when my main point was exactly that – DoF is a subjective value that depends on factors that cannot be predetermined (at least, not easily) when the image is captured.

However, for those claiming that DoF is a fixed value that is set at the time the image is captured and is determined just by subject distance and aperture, yes…it’s hard for them to win an argument because Atkins is correct in that DoF is a subjective value. More generally, it’s hard for anyone to win an argument when they’re wrong about the relevant facts.

Edit: In fact, I posted that quote from Atkins’ website earlier. Hopefully you didn’t think you’d catch me out with it…

 

[privatebydesign]

You quoted Bob Atkins earlier, here is a quote from his website: "DOF is at best a "fuzzy" concept, depending on subjective judgement of what appears to be sharp."

Depth of Field Calculator

Wouldn't it be hard win an argument using facts to prove a "fuzzy" concept that depends on subjective judgment?

So if we agree with Bob, and who can’t, how does a “fuzzy” concept fit into the argument of depth of field is set at capture?

If it was set at capture it would be comparatively easy to define. But it isn’t set at capture and isn’t easy to define, not least of which because of the scenario I laid out earlier where the same picture on the same wall at the same distance can have different depth of field characteristics for two people looking at it at the same time. Now that is fuzzy and completely agrees with Bob.

 

[Deleted]

So if we agree with Bob, and who can’t, how does a “fuzzy” concept fit into the argument of depth of field is set at capture?

If it was set at capture it would be comparatively easy to define. But it isn’t set at capture and isn’t easy to define, not least of which because of the scenario I laid out earlier where the same picture on the same wall at the same distance can have different depth of field characteristics for two people looking at it at the same time. Now that is fuzzy and completely agrees with Bob.

Problem is, this argument is akin to to a tree falling in the woods, does it still fall if nobody is there to see it? Red is not red to everyone, blue is not blue to everyone. We all perceive the world around us in a different way. We are all individuals (“I’m not”). Does our perception alter the physical properties of a subject? Does less red light get reflected from a tree just because the viewer is colour blind? A print does not change its properties based on the viewer, only our tiny brains change the perception.

Oddly, just as I was writing that a notification popped up on my iPad saying “Why is Mars red?”. To my colleague in the office it isn’t as he cannot see red, well the colour red are least. He really does see red when he is behind the wheel and an Audi is 3mm from his rear bumper.

 

[privatebydesign]

Problem is, this argument is akin to to a tree falling in the woods, does it still fall if nobody is there to see it? Red is not red to everyone, blue is not blue to everyone. We all perceive the world around us in a different way. We are all individuals (“I’m not”). Does our perception alter the physical properties of a subject? Does less red light get reflected from a tree just because the viewer is colour blind? A print does not change its properties based on the viewer, only our tiny brains change the perception.

Oddly, just as I was writing that a notification popped up on my iPad saying “Why is Mars red?”. To my colleague in the office it isn’t as he cannot see red, well the colour red are least. He really does see red when he is behind the wheel and an Audi is 3mm from his rear bumper.

EXACTLY! And as by all definitions depth of field is determined by what is acceptably sharp, acceptable sharp changes as you get closer or further away from a print.

The print does not change, our perception of the print including the acceptably sharp parts of it, changes. At last you get it.

 

[Deleted]

EXACTLY! And as by all definitions depth of field is determined by what is acceptably sharp, acceptable sharp changes as you get closer or further away from a print.

The print does not change, our perception of the print including the acceptably sharp parts of it, changes. At last you get it.

You still make assumptions

 

[takesome1]

So if we agree with Bob, and who can’t, how does a “fuzzy” concept fit into the argument of depth of field is set at capture?

Perhaps like this.
The subjective judgment that determines what is sharp is your own.
Knowing that a certain lens at a certain aperture always gives you the same results.
Knowing the parameters of how the picture is going to be viewed, sized etc. in advance and of course you are the one setting the standard for what is in focus.
Experience.

I posted this in an earlier post:

"lets say I shoot an object 20' away with nothing in the foreground with my 24mm lens on a FF body at f/8. The DoF calculator gives 6.8' to Infinity."

I would be very certain that with those given parameters I would obtain the results I expect.

So from your point of view, when I looked at the picture the DoF was determined.
I believe the outcome was set at capture, because I only intended the picture for one use and size.
If I start cropping, printing large or someone else determining what is acceptably sharp then the fuzzy concept comes in to play.

 

[EricN]

You still make assumptions

Soooo, you don't get it?

 

[privatebydesign]

You still make assumptions

My assumption is dof is subjective, because the definition of dof has a subjective element.

You are the one who brought the subjectivity of color into the conversation, I agreed and embraced that. The colors you and I perceive from the same print when standing next to each other are almost certainly different, we agree. Why can’t you take that one extra step and consider the fact that out perception of acceptably sharp is also different?

 

[takesome1]

Edit: In fact, I posted that quote from Atkins’ website earlier. Hopefully you didn’t think you’d catch me out with it…

No, not at all. I had went back to your earlier post before I pulled up his website.

 

[privatebydesign]

If I start cropping, printing large or someone else determining what is acceptably sharp then the concept maybe fuzzy comes in to play.

You can’t ever determine the exact crop, reproduction size AND viewing distance of your predetermined image, therefore you cannot ‘set’ the dof at exposure.

All you are doing at exposure is setting parameters that will give you the dof IF the image is not cropped, is reproduced at one size and viewed from one distance. Sure you can do that but it still doesn’t address the FACT that dof changes as the print size/viewing distance changes.

You say dof is determined at capture, but that does not allow for the subjective nature of the definition of the word. Accepting that at capture your settings will equate to one specific output size and viewing distance is a simple way of achieving ‘acceptable’ results, but it isn’t the definition of dof and understanding and accepting the truth about the ‘fuzzy’ nature of the subject helps when we push ourselves.

I use a 20mp camera and have several interstate billboards that use images from that 20mp camera. By now we all must agree that viewing distance/reproduction size is a factor in resolution? Why then is it such a leap to accept dof is also impacted by viewing distance/reproduction size?

Did anybody do what I suggested earlier and make a full screen image fuzzy then view it on a phone screen? This concept is SO easy to prove to yourself I cannot understand why people don’t just take 2 minutes to prove it to themselves, this is a vision based question and forum!

 

[takesome1]

You can’t ever determine the exact crop, reproduction size AND viewing distance of your predetermined image, therefore you cannot ‘set’ the dof at exposure.

All you are doing at exposure is setting parameters that will give you the dof IF the image is not cropped, is reproduced at one size and viewed from one distance. Sure you can do that but it still doesn’t address the FACT that dof changes as the print size/viewing distance changes.

I have a multitude of pictures that are printed without crop that I keep in display books that I occasionally go through and view at normal reading distance.

It seems your two comments contradict.

Again, I do not disagree with anything else you have said.

 

[privatebydesign]

I have a multitude of pictures that are printed without crop that I keep in display books that I occasionally go through and view at normal reading distance.

It seems your two comments contradict.

Again, I do not disagree with anything else you have said.

Even if you have your prints you view at your standard distance that still doesn’t address the subjective nature of individuals perception of ‘acceptably sharp’!

But I have never said you can’t work backwards and predetermine an output size and viewing distance to make sure what you want in acceptable focus is covered by your f stop, indeed that is exactly what dof calculators do. But that still doesn’t address the fact, and my point, that when those images are viewed at different distances the dof characteristics change.

 

[Dalantech]

Wow is that a bee with pollen on its antenna and nose?
The RF crop sensor sounds like with any luck it should be a great camera.

Yes, it is high on its own supply

 

[Czardoom]

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.

Your welcome. I'm intentionally ignoring the 3 or 4 pages of continued arguing because obviously some folks just have to be right and won't understand the possibility that semantics is indeed at play here.

I think one way to look at it (obviously not the official right way...) is to understand that there are two aspects to this discussion. As photographers, we are often in a position where we want to make decisions on how in-focus and/or how blurry (sorry for the totally unscientific term) we want certain areas of the photo to be. We think of this as considering the "Depth of Field." We might use DOF calculators, DOF preview buttons or just our experience in making various decisions to manipulate this "Depth of Field." When we take the photo, the resulting level of sharpness is captured. If this was a film negative, the capture is complete and unchangeable. Disregarding the possible sharpness adjustments of digital files, the sharpness of the various elements of the photo are captured and set. This captured image and the various levels of sharpness at different distances from the focal plane or the shooter, is often referred to as "Depth of Field" (whether rightly or wrongly.

The second aspect to the topic of DOF, occurs when you view the resultant photo. Size, cropping, viewing distance all play a part in what is perceived to be sharp and how sharp or blurry the objects in the photo are. So, now we have viewing or perceived DOF - which is what the bulk of the discussion has been about. Some have argued that this is the only definition of DOF that matters, totally ignoring that photographers DO INDEED refer to DOF when discussing their intent of manipulating focus/blur when setting up the camera pre-capture.

And so, failing to see the semantic differences in these two aspects of DOF has led to endless arguing, bullying, and arrogant by design behavior on the forum. Anyone really surprised?

 

[unfocused]

Yes, it is high on its own supply

You've mentioned that you shoot without focus stacking. Perhaps you'd be willing to discuss your techniques in more detail. It would certainly be more interesting than the last 4-5 pages.