4 ms·

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