Ah, but now you've injected the notion of "greater enlargement." That's a
different ballgame. Carried to its extreme, DOF becomes practically
non-existant. I can blow up a 6x9cm Provia 100F tranny enough so that anything
not in the plane of exact prime focus starts to get soft and fuzzy. DOF can
cover up for only so much nearly in focus stuff, and it is strictly governed by
the law of diminishing returns.
You have to live with what you start with, and if you have a little thing in
the beginning, you can't expect to have a big thing in the end.
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Michael R. Collins" <michael789@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >I thought what we were talking about was photographs made with the
> >same focal length lens, the difference being whether the full image
> >was captured, as a full-frame camera would do, or just the center,
> >as in a half-frame or 4:3 digital camera.
>
> I didn't save the original post, I'll have to wait 'til the morning
> to fetch it from the list archive, but... I thought (perhaps
> mistakenly) that we were talking about an OM lens on an E-1 with
> adapter, and whether its DoF markings [originally calculated for 35mm
> film format] were useful, with or without conversion factor. If
> that's the case, I still claim the DoF is different for a same-size
> print (i.e., greater enlargement from the 4:3). Apologies if my
> short-term memory is faulty :-( .
>
> Michael
> --
> Michael R. Collins ... Michael.Collins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Toronto, Ontario, Canada
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|