I'll commit a cardinal sin of mailing lists/forums here by replying before I've read the whole thread to date, but as I'm a few hundred messages short of reading all, and as new messages are arriving faster than I can read the old ones, I'll jump in. Forgive me if this has already been addressed.
Without getting into the dof debate, which is a tired and IMO unwinnable argument, what is being experienced here is nothing to do with dof and everything to do with interpolation. Consider that each pixel of Bayer array capture is interpolated against its eight neighbouring pixels, and each of those neighbouring pixels is likewise interpolated against its eight neighbours, and so forth across the entire entire sensor. So it is apparent that there is an erosion of the dof principle here, and that what you witness when you view a digital photo is not the natural dof of a particular lens but a dof that has been substancially altered by the digital process. The only ways that digital dof can be compared to analog dof would be to capture on a monochrome sensor, on a Foveon sensor, or to analyse the uninterpolated RAW image of a Bayer arrayed sensor. Comparison photos of digital versus analog in any other form are NOT equal comparisons of dof between formats, only an illustration of how digital capture has changed the rules. regards, Anthony Farr > -----Original Message----- > From: DagT [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, 14 July 2005 3:29 PM (snip) > >> > > > > Depth of field will differ, with the smaller format generating more > > DOF at any given aperture. > > Not sure by how much exactly, I expect you will probably open up a > > full stop to get similar DOF from APS C sized digital as compared to > > 35mm. > > > > William Robb > > One step is the usual rule. Which means that I need an 18mm 1.4 to get > an equivalent to my 28 2.0... > > DagT > http://dag.foto.no
