A7s, Depth-of-Field, and the Micro-4/3 Advantage

[richg101]

 

 

first shot is A7R full frame (36mmx20mm(16:9)) with Noritar 80mm f2 (@ f2)

 

second shot is Forbes 70 (*Boring Mode) (60mmx34mm(16:9)) with Hasselblad 150mm f2.8 (@ f4)

 

 

being able to use a longer lens with a smaller aperture allows a lot greater fidelity on the in focus portion of the image due to the lens performance being so much better.  

[Nikkor]

Wow, that's a really clean image you are getting from that ground glass. Amazing. I will have to wait for a speedbooster to use my pentax 165 2.8 on video.

 

You got an MP, did you see it? :D

 

Btw, is the Noritar any good compared to the contax (which isn't stellar either and is only for 645)?

[richg101]

Wow, that's a really clean image you are getting from that ground glass. Amazing. I will have to wait for a speedbooster to use my pentax 165 2.8 on video.

 

You got an MP, did you see it? :D

 

Btw, is the Noritar any good compared to the contax (which isn't stellar either and is only for 645)?

 

 

I have a 180mm f2.8 Schneider Xenar I want to fit but need to fabricate a 6000 mount for forbes.  long lenses are lovely on the system.

 

MP?  what you mean?

 

Noritar is a lovely lens (for character).  it's not crazy sharp, but not soft wide open either.  The main reason for this lens is for the swirly bokeh on medium format - nothing can match it.  Since I am using it here on a crop sensor, the best portion of the lens is being used.  yet still ,wide open it shows its weakness.  A true challenge would be an 85mm f1.2 canon L on full frame against the 150 at f2.8.  I still think the hassy would have the edge in terms of overall zingyness of the in focus areas.  Anyone wanna give me their 85mm L lens?  Andrew?  :)

[Nikkor]

PM, I typed it backwards ^^. (personal message about that bh lens).

 

I want the contax 80 f2 but the camera is too expensive and the mount is too big to adapt it to a mamiya 645 :(

[noone]

I have a 180mm f2.8 Schneider Xenar I want to fit but need to fabricate a 6000 mount for forbes.  long lenses are lovely on the system.

 

MP?  what you mean?

 

Noritar is a lovely lens (for character).  it's not crazy sharp, but not soft wide open either.  The main reason for this lens is for the swirly bokeh on medium format - nothing can match it.  Since I am using it here on a crop sensor, the best portion of the lens is being used.  yet still ,wide open it shows its weakness.  A true challenge would be an 85mm f1.2 canon L on full frame against the 150 at f2.8.  I still think the hassy would have the edge in terms of overall zingyness of the in focus areas.  Anyone wanna give me their 85mm L lens?  Andrew?   :)

I have an FD 85 1.2 you can borrow.   You coming to Australia to pick it up or sending me the airfare to bring it there?

 

I think you would be right about the Hassy having the edge.   Still is fun to use the 85 and at 1.2 close up the DOF is way too thin for me to use much for video.

http://youtu.be/Pw0Go5ghcYA

[Nikkor]

That's the nice thing about larger formats, you get your subject easily into focus (and sharply) and still can have a nice background blur (no need to go as crazy as on the sample down below).

 

See how the focus pushes in on a pentax 165 2.8 (on full frame it would be similar to what you get with a 85 1.4) If you were using a 85 1.2-1.4 the focus would be more gradual. This is what makes you go crazy because you only have a sharp nose, or one sharp eye,etc... when using the 85 1.2

Which is what Richs video shows but with a touch lower aperture.

 

 

Oh, and you can also take pictures of grown man like this one:

[pietz]

You are wrong. I wouldn't care if I were wrong, fuck the EGO. But you are simply wrong. I always thought this was bullshit until I got into it and understood why. Since nobody pays me for this I'm not going to write a paper for you because it would take me a lot of time. You don't want to believe me, I don't care.

You don't need to be precise to do the comparsion, the difference isn't going to change with 2mm. But you can try it on your own with a zoom lens (I sold my zoomlenses).

And remember, the two images were shot at different apertures, half along your post you seem to have forgotten it.

 

Richs comparsion shots are between APSc and fullframe, so the difference will be even lower, anyway, the lens he uses is so bad wide open that you can't tell much, so I see a difference in them but you can't really point it out.

 

but see my friend, you're not giving me much to work with. many people have theories and throw them out there, but without any evidence or proof you cant just go around and tell people they're wrong. i mean Ken Ham believes the world as completely flooded 4000 years ago for a full year and the only reason he can state pretty much is: "you cant prove that im wrong. something that happens in the past can never be proven true." well, i just dont argue with people discussing like this. its not a logical behaviour. and you go around saying, i found this ground breaking new theory and youre all wrong but i wont prove it to you. i just cant take you serious and i hope you understand my reason behind it.

 

you also keep stating things that give the appearance as if you absolutely dont know what youre talking about. how am i to test this myself with a camera and a zoom lens? your statement from page one is also based on this false connection to this matter.

 

You could take a picture with a 50mm and crop it to get the same compression as if it were taken with a 200mm. But the rendering is obviously a lot different.

 

 

well this is undoubtedly true, what does it have to do with this discussion? if you take one image at 50mm and crop away so much it has the same viewing angle as a 200mm. than you take the same image at 200mm. well OBVIOUSLY these pictures will look different and nobody is saying otherwise, but if this is the only reason behind my wrong-being, you should rethink your theory rather quickly.

[Nikkor]

well this is undoubtedly true, what does it have to do with this discussion? if you take one image at 50mm and crop away so much it has the same viewing angle as a 200mm. than you take the same image at 200mm. well OBVIOUSLY these pictures will look different and nobody is saying otherwise, but if this is the only reason behind my wrong-being, you should rethink your theory rather quickly.

 

If the evidence were right in front of you (which it is) you wouldn't see it. I can't do the thinking for you.

 

I take two pictures, one with a 28 @ 2.8 another with a 60 @5.6. Depth of field is the same if you follow the formula, but the rendering is different obviously different (the jpg compression isn't doing any favor). But then you have no problem to forget the different apertures,bla bla, get all condescendent, and don't understand that if you really think that the difference is only due to 28mm being different than 30, you could just do the test for yourself, with your camera, and a zoom lens and see the difference (if you have to matching primes it will be clearer because zoom lenses aren't really that great on both ends).

 

You don't want to look at the pictures, the video (when medium format is compared to fullframe) or to the first ones comparing FF to M43, or you don't think the difference is important. Good for you.