I thought Dick answered it perfectly. Evidently we are not
understanding what you are asking.
Depth of field is an optical property, not a sensor property except
for its format size and that only because of equalization of print
size. Here is a more complete discussion than the one I referred you
to before.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/
dof.shtml
More thorough yet, especially if you are interested in the mathematics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
The reason I gave you a site in my first reply which has a calculator
is that you could put in your own parameters and check for yourself.
Part of your question did not make sense to me because if you
equalize everything it is really hard to compare. For instance, you
are not going to take the same picture from the same distance with
different sized sensors. One will be tightly framed and the other
will have lots of space around it if you do that. 4/3 and 2/3 framing
considerations are different. The 1.5X and 2X factors are based on
the diagonal of differently shaped rectangles. I would guess that
what you want is a comparison of the depth of field appearance of two
final images of the same size, same print format and probably you
will want to specify whether you are doing a vertical or a horizontal
because all those things affect how much you are magnifying images
and the circles of confusion. It is beyond my poor abilities. I just
use the depth of field preview.
Generally speaking depth of field for the same image, think filling
the frame with a basket of fruit with each camera, you are going to
have more depth of field with a smaller sensor. The reason is that
because it trims off more of the image and you have to step back to
get the same framing which increases your depth of field. That is why
digicams are so popular for macro. It is also why they are unpopular
for portraits because it is difficult to throw the background out of
focus and their slow lenses do not help. The same considerations
apply to film in different sizes and has nothing to do with what they
can capture. But really, read the references. They make more sense
than I do.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Apr 26, 2007, at 6:27 PM, Ali Shah wrote:
> Why is my DOF question being ignored? Is it an overly
> dumb question? Perhpas the simple answer is the
> smaller sensor which cant absorb as much?!?
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|