8 ms·

i suspect he's correct, but it's strange to see an article on the subject, written by an apparent expert, that doesn't mention depth of field.

justincormack 13y ago
There seem to be wider aperture small field lenses turning up eg f0.95, although they will have to be pretty big...
- andrewcooke 13y ago
  if you do the maths, depth of field depends on both the aperture and the sensor size. in other words, f1 on a smaller detector doesn't give the same depth of field as on a larger detector (for an object at the same distance). i wrote about here, but i am not sure it's very clear http://www.acooke.org/cute/DepthofFie1.html http://www.acooke.org/cute/DepthofFie1.html [edit: and so, for medium format, depth of field is more pronounced...]
  - justincormack 13y ago
    Sure, thats why people are going for f1 or less vs the usual f2 or so on full frame.
  - ubercow13 13y ago
    But mirrored vs mirrorless is not directly related to sensor size, there are mirrorless full-frame cameras.
  - pampa 13y ago
    Shallow depth of field is of limited use and vastly overrated. I was shooting mostly with medium format TLR camera and there was always a problem getting greater dof, not shallower. Greater dof is actually a big plus for many shooting styles and subjects.
    - abirkill 13y ago
      Isn't that somewhat sweeping? Sure, for some types of photography, getting a shallow depth of field is rarely a concern, but in other disciplines, a shallow depth of field is highly desirable. Many wedding and portrait photographers have at least experimented with the Brenizer Method[1], the sole purpose of which is to create an image with a shallower depth of field than is otherwise possible, and replicate the appearance of large-format photography. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brenizer_Method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brenizer_Method
clarry 13y ago
Why should he mention depth of field? Two out of the three "compact" cameras he mentions having are equipped with APS-C sensors, which, while smaller than 35mm, are still plenty large for most uses. They're used in DSLRs too. The third one is a Micro 4/3 sensor, which is just a little bit smaller compared to the APS-C. And then you have for example the Leica M8 & M9, both with large sensors. They're not DSLRs either.
- RexRollman 13y ago
  I thought depth of field had more to do with the lense than the sensors.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    It has to do with both. A smaller sensor acts as a magnifier, so if you use say a f2 lens, you get the equivalent of using a f4 depth of field (less narrow, that is).
  - ScottBurson 13y ago
    Yes, there seems to be some confusion here. Wikipedia[0] has a good explanation of depth of field. It's not the same as angle of view, which is what it seems to be getting confused with here. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
abirkill 13y ago
With lenses like the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, we are starting to see how depth of field issues might be improved. There's a very long way to go though. I agree that it's very likely to happen, although I'm not sure we're there yet. The VF-4 EVF does finally have what I would call a 'barely-acceptable' resolution, but I think 4K resolution EVFs will be required to really equal the detail someone with good eyesight can see through a good optical viewfinder. The other issue I've had with all EVFs I've tried (which doesn't include the VF-4) is the input lag is, although small, quite noticeable. Until that's fixed, EVFs are very unlikely to replace optical viewfinders for sports and wildlife photographers. Similarly, it's hard to beat the speed of the phase-detect autofocus in professional bodies at the moment. Again, that's fixable, probably with a combination of better on-sensor phase detection and more advanced algorithms to mix phase-detect and contrast-detect data together, but I think we're still at least two generations away from a system that can accurately track a fast-moving and erratic object. Once those issues are resolved though, I can very quickly see the DSLR losing significant market share. There's simply too many advantages to mirrorless cameras -- no heavy, soft, expensive retrofocus wide-angle lenses, no calibration issues between the focus module and the image sensor, no heavy mirror to flip out of the way for every shot, full exposure simulation through the viewfinder (and a host of useful overlays), etc. etc. Some photographers, of course, don't need focus tracking, and can probably put up with a less-than-stellar viewfinder resolution, which is why a lot of landscape photographers (who also often don't need a narrow depth of field) are already moving towards mirrorless, at least as a second camera. Personally, apart from the investment I have in SLR glass, I am looking forward to the advantages that mirrorless cameras will bring in a few years time.
- tekacs 13y ago
  > no heavy mirror to flip out of the way for every shot ... which brings, not least, a drastically increased lifetime. :)
  - bborud 13y ago
    Increased lifetime for what? By the time I get anywhere near the announced lifetime of the shutter I will long since have upgraded to a newer model.
devb 13y ago
What? He mentions it in the fourth paragraph. > The elephant in the room is legacy lenses: it’s tough for a DSLR owner to give up his glass collection, because a similar depth of offerings simply does not exist in other smaller formats.
- abirkill 13y ago
  I'm pretty sure when he says 'depth of offerings', he's referring to niche lens types, rather than depth of field. He continues: > Even the most mature of the mirrorless formats – Leica M and M4/3 – both lack any sort of perspective correction lenses, other than using a DSLR lens with a tilt or shift adaptor; there are no native solutions despite them being ideally suited to this kind of work because of live view. Tilt-shift lenses, long working distance macro lenses, wide angle primes, and fast super-telephotos are all hard to find in mirrorless mounts.
  - Stratoscope 13y ago
    No question you're right about the tilt-shift. Just to satisfy my curiosity, I wonder if you (or anyone) could compare what's available in DSLR lenses compared to these M4/3 lenses: Wide angle prime: Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 7.5mm f/3.5 rectangular fisheye, 8mm f/3.5 Panasonic, 12mm f/2.0 Olympus Long working distance macro: Olympus 60mm f/2.8, working distance 7.5" for 1:1 image Fast super-telephoto: 100-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Panasonic (yeah, that doesn't sound very fast to me) Not questioning that there are better DSLR lenses, just interested in comparing them to help me understand the differences between the systems. Thanks!
    - abirkill 13y ago
      > Wide angle prime: Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 7.5mm f/3.5 rectangular fisheye, 8mm f/3.5 Panasonic, 12mm f/2.0 Olympus The focal lengths are there but the apertures are narrower than the most common full-frame wide-angle primes, e.g. 14mm f/2.8 or 24mm f/1.4. This means less light, and also, as discussed elsewhere, a much wider minimum depth of field on the m4/3 lenses, due to the smaller sensor. (I meant to say 'fast wide-angle primes' in my original post, my mistake). > Long working distance macro: Olympus 60mm f/2.8, working distance 7.5" for 1:1 image My understanding was that 7.5" was the MFD (the distance from the film/sensor to the subject), not the MWD (the distance from the front element to the subject), on this lens, but I haven't used it. This review seems to suggest a working distance of 90mm (~3.5 inches) at 1:1, but it may also be wrong: http://savazzi.freehostia.com/photography/olympus60mm.html http://savazzi.freehostia.com/photography/olympus60mm.html If it does have a working distance of 7.5" at 1:1 that's very respectable -- up there with a 150mm, and not far below a 180mm full-frame macro. > Fast super-telephoto: 100-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Panasonic Again, the focal lengths here are good, and it's a zoom (try finding a 200-600mm zoom lens of any aperture for a full-frame camera), but the aperture is again a bit disappointing when compared to something like a 400mm f/2.8, both in terms of the amount of light it lets in and how shallow the depth of field is. Don't misunderstand me -- there are a great range of lenses for both m4/3 and Sony NEX cameras, which cover the popular focal lengths and produce stunning results. They're also usually a lot cheaper (that Panasonic telephoto is around $600, vs. around $10,000 for a 400mm f/2.8 full-frame lens) and a lot lighter. But if you've already spent $10,000 on a 400mm f/2.8 for your full-frame camera (and are making money from it), you're probably going to want a lens that will give similar results before you go mirrorless, which I think was the author's point.

justincormack 13y ago

There seem to be wider aperture small field lenses turning up eg f0.95, although they will have to be pretty big...

andrewcooke 13y ago
if you do the maths, depth of field depends on both the aperture and the sensor size. in other words, f1 on a smaller detector doesn't give the same depth of field as on a larger detector (for an object at the same distance). i wrote about here, but i am not sure it's very clear http://www.acooke.org/cute/DepthofFie1.html http://www.acooke.org/cute/DepthofFie1.html [edit: and so, for medium format, depth of field is more pronounced...]
- justincormack 13y ago
  Sure, thats why people are going for f1 or less vs the usual f2 or so on full frame.
- ubercow13 13y ago
  But mirrored vs mirrorless is not directly related to sensor size, there are mirrorless full-frame cameras.
- pampa 13y ago
  Shallow depth of field is of limited use and vastly overrated. I was shooting mostly with medium format TLR camera and there was always a problem getting greater dof, not shallower. Greater dof is actually a big plus for many shooting styles and subjects.
  - abirkill 13y ago
    Isn't that somewhat sweeping? Sure, for some types of photography, getting a shallow depth of field is rarely a concern, but in other disciplines, a shallow depth of field is highly desirable. Many wedding and portrait photographers have at least experimented with the Brenizer Method[1], the sole purpose of which is to create an image with a shallower depth of field than is otherwise possible, and replicate the appearance of large-format photography. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brenizer_Method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brenizer_Method

clarry 13y ago

Why should he mention depth of field? Two out of the three "compact" cameras he mentions having are equipped with APS-C sensors, which, while smaller than 35mm, are still plenty large for most uses. They're used in DSLRs too. The third one is a Micro 4/3 sensor, which is just a little bit smaller compared to the APS-C. And then you have for example the Leica M8 & M9, both with large sensors. They're not DSLRs either.

RexRollman 13y ago
I thought depth of field had more to do with the lense than the sensors.
- coldtea 13y ago
  It has to do with both. A smaller sensor acts as a magnifier, so if you use say a f2 lens, you get the equivalent of using a f4 depth of field (less narrow, that is).
- ScottBurson 13y ago
  Yes, there seems to be some confusion here. Wikipedia[0] has a good explanation of depth of field. It's not the same as angle of view, which is what it seems to be getting confused with here. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]

abirkill 13y ago

With lenses like the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, we are starting to see how depth of field issues might be improved. There's a very long way to go though. I agree that it's very likely to happen, although I'm not sure we're there yet. The VF-4 EVF does finally have what I would call a 'barely-acceptable' resolution, but I think 4K resolution EVFs will be required to really equal the detail someone with good eyesight can see through a good optical viewfinder. The other issue I've had with all EVFs I've tried (which doesn't include the VF-4) is the input lag is, although small, quite noticeable. Until that's fixed, EVFs are very unlikely to replace optical viewfinders for sports and wildlife photographers. Similarly, it's hard to beat the speed of the phase-detect autofocus in professional bodies at the moment. Again, that's fixable, probably with a combination of better on-sensor phase detection and more advanced algorithms to mix phase-detect and contrast-detect data together, but I think we're still at least two generations away from a system that can accurately track a fast-moving and erratic object. Once those issues are resolved though, I can very quickly see the DSLR losing significant market share. There's simply too many advantages to mirrorless cameras -- no heavy, soft, expensive retrofocus wide-angle lenses, no calibration issues between the focus module and the image sensor, no heavy mirror to flip out of the way for every shot, full exposure simulation through the viewfinder (and a host of useful overlays), etc. etc. Some photographers, of course, don't need focus tracking, and can probably put up with a less-than-stellar viewfinder resolution, which is why a lot of landscape photographers (who also often don't need a narrow depth of field) are already moving towards mirrorless, at least as a second camera. Personally, apart from the investment I have in SLR glass, I am looking forward to the advantages that mirrorless cameras will bring in a few years time.

tekacs 13y ago
> no heavy mirror to flip out of the way for every shot ... which brings, not least, a drastically increased lifetime. :)
- bborud 13y ago
  Increased lifetime for what? By the time I get anywhere near the announced lifetime of the shutter I will long since have upgraded to a newer model.

devb 13y ago

What? He mentions it in the fourth paragraph. > The elephant in the room is legacy lenses: it’s tough for a DSLR owner to give up his glass collection, because a similar depth of offerings simply does not exist in other smaller formats.

abirkill 13y ago
I'm pretty sure when he says 'depth of offerings', he's referring to niche lens types, rather than depth of field. He continues: > Even the most mature of the mirrorless formats – Leica M and M4/3 – both lack any sort of perspective correction lenses, other than using a DSLR lens with a tilt or shift adaptor; there are no native solutions despite them being ideally suited to this kind of work because of live view. Tilt-shift lenses, long working distance macro lenses, wide angle primes, and fast super-telephotos are all hard to find in mirrorless mounts.
- Stratoscope 13y ago
  No question you're right about the tilt-shift. Just to satisfy my curiosity, I wonder if you (or anyone) could compare what's available in DSLR lenses compared to these M4/3 lenses: Wide angle prime: Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 7.5mm f/3.5 rectangular fisheye, 8mm f/3.5 Panasonic, 12mm f/2.0 Olympus Long working distance macro: Olympus 60mm f/2.8, working distance 7.5" for 1:1 image Fast super-telephoto: 100-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Panasonic (yeah, that doesn't sound very fast to me) Not questioning that there are better DSLR lenses, just interested in comparing them to help me understand the differences between the systems. Thanks!
  - abirkill 13y ago
    > Wide angle prime: Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 7.5mm f/3.5 rectangular fisheye, 8mm f/3.5 Panasonic, 12mm f/2.0 Olympus The focal lengths are there but the apertures are narrower than the most common full-frame wide-angle primes, e.g. 14mm f/2.8 or 24mm f/1.4. This means less light, and also, as discussed elsewhere, a much wider minimum depth of field on the m4/3 lenses, due to the smaller sensor. (I meant to say 'fast wide-angle primes' in my original post, my mistake). > Long working distance macro: Olympus 60mm f/2.8, working distance 7.5" for 1:1 image My understanding was that 7.5" was the MFD (the distance from the film/sensor to the subject), not the MWD (the distance from the front element to the subject), on this lens, but I haven't used it. This review seems to suggest a working distance of 90mm (~3.5 inches) at 1:1, but it may also be wrong: http://savazzi.freehostia.com/photography/olympus60mm.html http://savazzi.freehostia.com/photography/olympus60mm.html If it does have a working distance of 7.5" at 1:1 that's very respectable -- up there with a 150mm, and not far below a 180mm full-frame macro. > Fast super-telephoto: 100-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Panasonic Again, the focal lengths here are good, and it's a zoom (try finding a 200-600mm zoom lens of any aperture for a full-frame camera), but the aperture is again a bit disappointing when compared to something like a 400mm f/2.8, both in terms of the amount of light it lets in and how shallow the depth of field is. Don't misunderstand me -- there are a great range of lenses for both m4/3 and Sony NEX cameras, which cover the popular focal lengths and produce stunning results. They're also usually a lot cheaper (that Panasonic telephoto is around $600, vs. around $10,000 for a 400mm f/2.8 full-frame lens) and a lot lighter. But if you've already spent $10,000 on a 400mm f/2.8 for your full-frame camera (and are making money from it), you're probably going to want a lens that will give similar results before you go mirrorless, which I think was the author's point.