No one here claimed that a 150/2.0 on 4/3 was equal to a 300/2.0 as
concerns depth of field. The comparison was to a 300/4.0. In that
comparison, 150/2.0 on 4/3 vs. 300/4.0 on 35mm the DOF is, in fact,
identical. I invite you to compare for yourself using any conventional
DOF calculator while being sure to adjust the size of the CoC by a
factor of 2 between formats.
Dr. Focus
Dawid Loubser wrote:
>
> No, I actually really don't, I have become a huge fan of the Four
> Thirds system. However, I have posted many times here that a crucial element
> of my
> personal style is almost always to strive for the shallowest DOF possible. It
> is
> something I > personally pay a lot of attention to, so I always get a bit
> irked when
> people claim a 150/2.0 to be "equivalent" to a 300/2.0 - for some needs it
> is, but > certainly for my needs (which place a premium on shallow DOF, even
> often at the expense of resolution / contrast) will never be. So I have this
> annoying habit
> of pointing it out. But I really don't want to start a dreaded DPReview
> equivalency
> war here, "i's jus' sayin..."
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|