Andy Kibber
Well-known
He clearly moved much closer to the cans to take the second picture so the comparison is pointless. You can even see his hat's shadow in the second picture.
antiquark
Derek Ross
The calculator doesn't lie!
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
Andy Kibber
Well-known
I agree, but Pickett's photos should be the other way around! The LX3 @ 24mm will have less in focus than the 5D at the same aperture and focus distance. The comparison is misleading because he's changed the focus distance to get the same field of view.
That's all from yours truly on the subject.
Sparrow
Veteran
He'll write another book: "Snapshots of the Gods."
Yes but I'm not sure even he could explain a one dimensional photo focused at infinity
His website claims he is the world's most successful non-fiction writer of all time but doesn't offer any proof
Last edited:
antiquark
Derek Ross
Threads like this provide an interesting insight into human nature...
antiquark
Derek Ross
As long as there is no DoF, I'm confident Daniken will have the intellectual powers to explain it!
In other news, the Pope craps in the woods...
Yes, there is an original question. What is the focal length and F-stop required to provide a normal field of view on a 35mm camera with enough depth of field so that you do not need to worry about focusing the camera?
FORTY-TWO.
42mm lenses used at F42 have infinite depth of field that encompasses the entire galaxy. So no matter how far out you hitchhike, you will still be in focus even if you are so far away that you are a point-source object.
Last edited:
Stephen G
Well-known
You are using the tool wrong.
Panasonic LX-3, 24mm (35mm equiv), f/2.8
24mm (35mm equiv) on LX-3 is 5.1mm actual focal length.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmclx3/
Lens • 2.5x zoom
• f=5.1-12.8mm (35mm Equiv.: 24-60mm)
So now input-
LX3 @ 5.1mm / f2.8 / 3ft subject distance
DOF = 5.5ft
Canon 5d @ 24mm / f2.8 / 3ft subject distance
DOF = 0.8ft
This lines up with what we see in the picture.
Now your statement can be both wrong or right depending on interpretation.
Facts
Effective focal length, on different sized sensors, has wildly different DOF.
Actual focal lengths, on different sized sensors, have same DOF.
Actual focal length
Put a 28mm summicron on an M8 and a 24mm on an M9, you get same DOF and the M8 looks cropped.
Now effective focal length
Put a 28mm summicron (28*1.33=37.24 effective focal length) on the M8 and a 35mm summicron on the M9. This will give you approximately the same angle of view. However, the DOF will be different. The M8 will look like the DOF of a 28mm, that has been cropped.
Note the sensor crop is small enough that the difference is 1.28ft 28-on-M8 vs 1.06ft 35-on-M9 for f2.0 @ 6ft.
But please understand how to use the tool before you go around shouting about its failure.
Sparrow
Veteran
Ya'but just you wait until she starts using those transferable-skills gained while playing Grand Theft Auto...
... my little Alice is driving now btw
Sparrow
Veteran
that's so funny ...
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
That only works with M42 lenses, though.
I'll check it on the St-801.
Do DOF calculations correct for the Theory of Relativity, or are they based on Newtonian Physics? Somehow I get the feeling that DOF changes if you are traveling at close to the speed of light.
Do DOF calculations correct for the Theory of Relativity, or are they based on Newtonian Physics? Somehow I get the feeling that DOF changes if you are traveling at close to the speed of light.
Sparrow
Veteran
Well clearly doppler shift, would have a profound effect if one were photographing ones relatives ...
Finder
Veteran
I think you would want Quantum Field Theory. It will give you a fast answer, but I am uncertain where you will find it. The Theory of Relativity will just tell you DoF does not work in meadows.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
tlitody
Well-known
Do you think shroedingers cats claws are in focus and sharp?
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Given the inverse-square law (light dimishes with the square of the distance), infinity-focus isn't really all that it's cracked up to be.
~Joe
~Joe
Finder
Veteran
It depends on the size of the box.
ampguy
Veteran
yes it will
yes it will
while mass goes towards zero as you approach the speed of light, even throwing a baseball can be measured slightly smaller when moving than at rest.
I'm wondering if this might be an easier to see and photograph phenomena than the move the barrel on m8 1 stop hyperfocal setting
yes it will
while mass goes towards zero as you approach the speed of light, even throwing a baseball can be measured slightly smaller when moving than at rest.
I'm wondering if this might be an easier to see and photograph phenomena than the move the barrel on m8 1 stop hyperfocal setting
Chris101
summicronia
Measured? I don't think so.
My 'back of the envelope' calculations say the Lorentzian contraction of a baseball thrown at 100 mph would be on the order of 10^-16 meters. Current thinking in holographic theory precludes a measurement that small.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.