Thats true. Only most digital sensors are less than 24x36mm. In practical everyday photography (not macro etc) it's not about very much or very little DOF. It's about very small marigins - perhaps a single F-stop or two. For the kind of photography I'm involved in, it's a questin of getting 1/250 sec. or 1/500 sec. - very often the difference between a useless or a useable photograph. For instance, this photograph would have been quite nice at 1/640 sec. in stead of 1/3200 sec. (I know this WAS a digital shot - I'm just trying to prove a point): http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/13936439/
Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 17. maj 2005 12:14 Til: [email protected] Emne: Re: Can I be a ludite please?! Since DOF is, in this case, dependent upon the sensor size, the blanket statement the digi affords greater (better?!) DOF is a bogus argument. Using a full frame sensor there is no DOF "advantage." Also, having to accept greater DOF when using a smaller sensor cannot always be construed as better. There are those that would consider it a negative since it restricts creativity, limiting the use of OOF elements in a photograph, compromising bokeh, and overall reducing selective focus. OTOH, using film with its essentially shallow DOF (by your standard) allows all of those elements to be present in a photograph PLUS the greater DOF you feel is better by just stopping down the lens. Why in the world would having to always live with more DOF be better in any way? Shel > On Tue, May 17 Jens Bladt wrote: > > Three things about digital photography are superior to film: > > > 3) Better DOF at the same AOV.
