D700, it's official. (1 Viewer)

daveofficer said:

guys, would you like me to conduct an independent trial? i still have my d80 and could take the same shot using the same lens on my d80 and my d700 and post the result up here for you to look at. i could even throw my g9 into the mix if you want a comparison with a tiny compact sensor.

though my understanding was always that a smaller sensor meant an increase in dof and that it was very tricky to get the same shallow depth of field on a dx sensor as with an fx but i could well be wrong.

Click to expand...

Your second paragraph is correct, and is what I have said repeatedly throughout this thread. There is no need to do a demonstration as this is all well known stuff.

Dipper said:

Will an FX sensor be better for macro photography than a DX? I think it will give better dof than the DX especially with the 105VR.

Adi

http://www.flickr.com/photos/46984194@N00/

Click to expand...

Not sure if it can directly affect DOF but the FX sensor is likely to be exceptional in low light situations this should help you to shoot at a higher iso therefore smaller aperture.

Thank you :t:

Adi

For anyone interested here's a test I did this afternoon.

The distance to the subject was kept as close as possible using a tape measure. The focus point was exactly the same, ISO, aperture, flash and so on. There is no post processing of the images at all except for resizing. Obviously the D3 image has been reduced less than the D300 to compensate for the FX sensor. See for yourself. Anyone want to guess which is which between Picture A and Picture B?

If you care to read the link that I attached earlier you will notice a yellow underlined here halfway down the page. I encourage you to follow the link.


http://www.naturfotograf.com/D3/D3_rev06.html

If anyone should like to see the originals pm me.

Picture A has a shallower depth of field and is the D3 image.

Outboard: Your demonstration shows exactly what is to be expected but it is worthless as you have completely missed the point.

Here is what I said:

"You also said that DOF depended on focal length, and I tried to explain (despite the abuse from you) that in practice it does not. If I use a 105mm micro lens to photograph a dragonfly on a camera, then I change to a 200mm lens, and move so that I get the same framing i.e. the same image, then the DOF is the same. This is nothing more than very basic well known stuff. "

(The text is not identical as I corrected a couple of minor typos which do not change the meaning.)

I could also use your falacious argument to say that DX and FX sensors have the same DOF since one is just a crop of the other. However, in practice one moves closer when using FX to get the same framing. And that is the same with focal length too. What changing the focal length alters is perspective and field of view.

Now take the same pictures, with two lenses, but get the same framing.

Leif, are you a politician by any chance?

I answered the question asked by Dipper, I provided my own findings and documentary evidence by a leading expert as a reference which you attempted to discredit.


Flip-Flop

Have a nice day.

Dipper said:

Will an FX sensor be better for macro photography than a DX? I think it will give better dof than the DX especially with the 105VR.

Adi

http://www.flickr.com/photos/46984194@N00/

Click to expand...

Outboard said:

Leif, are you a politician by any chance?

I answered the question asked by Dipper, I provided my own findings and documentary evidence by a leading expert as a reference which you attempted to discredit.


Flip-Flop

Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

I am not a politician but anyone would need the skills of a politician to remain calm when faced with a stream of abuse from you.

Okay, let's go back and see exactly what you said. First, here is what Dipper said:

"Will an FX sensor be better for macro photography than a DX? I think it will give better dof than the DX especially with the 105VR."

And you answered:

"Tricky question. They are both the same. "

Which is in practice incorrect and hence you were misleading Dipper and others.

Hence I posted a correction as follows:

"It's the opposite! Basically the DOF is a function of aperture, image magnification and circle of confusion. Now it so happens that the first two are the key parameters. So as you increase the magnification at a given F ratio, so the DOF reduces. That is why a DX sensor gives about 1 extra stop of DOF at a given F number and composition. You have to realise here that we are talking about similar compositions. So for a given subject, using the FX camera you move nearer to get the same framing."

The above quote agrees with the content of Rorslett's article. Unfortunately I initially misread a caption on one of his picture which led me to believe that he was in disagreement with accepted explanations of DOF. Hi ho.

And you also said:

"Now the depth of field is related to the focal length (greater focal length = less DOF)."

And as I have explained numerous times, in practice that is not the case. If you use two lenses with different focal lengths to take the same image, the DOF will be the same. In fact it is more sensible to think in terms of the image magnification, the real aperture, and the circle of confusion.

I find it tiresome continually having to quote from earlier posts.

Outboard, do you always treat someone to a stream of rather nasty insults when someone corrects misleading information in one of your posts? Is your world view one where no-one is allowed to correct you without fear of an assault?

I think you need to learn how to communicate in a public forum.

:C :C :C

Have you ever noticed that when politicians are challenged on a statement they've made that they waffle and bluster, doubletalk and flip-flop. When presented with evidence to the contrary they seek to discredit that evidence in one form or another. They then proceed to muddy the waters as much as possible so when challenged even further they deny that they ever said something or that a quote made by one of their challengers didn't even exist. By the time they have finished you would think the disputed statement was concerning the price of eggs at Tesco's.

A simple question was asked. DOF greater using a DX sensor or an FX sensor using a 105VR lens. Nothing more than that. That is the question I answered. My answer was and is that they are both the same. In post#37 I mention that I have conducted trials myself yet in post#53 you say that I never made such a claim when clearly I did. I have provided documentary evidence to support my answer furnished by eminent Norwegian scientist Bjorn Rorslett. You initially seek to dispute his findings, as well as saying he is conceited, condescending and in post #51 you actually say he was confused! Later on in post #55 you flip-flop and I quote "I have just rechecked Rorslett's article and in fact it shows exactly what I expect, and what I stated earlier should be seen". You make sarcastic comments such as "armchair expert" when at least I have used the equipment in question rather than reading about it. You continually seek to confuse the issue with changing lenses when all Dipper asked about was a single 105VR. You waffle on about magnification factors versus focal lengths and best of all "circles of confusion". Just who are you trying impress here Leifi? I'm sure Dipper doesn't care and I know I'm not. I could go on but I'm bored now.

I think you would make a splendid politician and as for the insults consider it training for your new burgeoning career.

Outboard said:

Have you ever noticed that when politicians are challenged on a statement they've made that they waffle and bluster, doubletalk and flip-flop. When presented with evidence to the contrary they seek to discredit that evidence in one form or another. They then proceed to muddy the waters as much as possible so when challenged even further they deny that they ever said something or that a quote made by one of their challengers didn't even exist. By the time they have finished you would think the disputed statement was concerning the price of eggs at Tesco's.

A simple question was asked. DOF greater using a DX sensor or an FX sensor using a 105VR lens. Nothing more than that. That is the question I answered. My answer was and is that they are both the same. In post#37 I mention that I have conducted trials myself yet in post#53 you say that I never made such a claim when clearly I did. I have provided documentary evidence to support my answer furnished by eminent Norwegian scientist Bjorn Rorslett. You initially seek to dispute his findings, as well as saying he is conceited, condescending and in post #51 you actually say he was confused! Later on in post #55 you flip-flop and I quote "I have just rechecked Rorslett's article and in fact it shows exactly what I expect, and what I stated earlier should be seen". You make sarcastic comments such as "armchair expert" when at least I have used the equipment in question rather than reading about it. You continually seek to confuse the issue with changing lenses when all Dipper asked about was a single 105VR. You waffle on about magnification factors versus focal lengths and best of all "circles of confusion". Just who are you trying impress here Leifi? I'm sure Dipper doesn't care and I know I'm not. I could go on but I'm bored now.

I think you would make a splendid politician and as for the insults consider it training for your new burgeoning career.

Click to expand...

I will ignore the insults.

See the following tutorials:

http://www.dofmaster.com/dof_dslr.html
http://photo.net/learn/optics/dofdigital/
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Field-of-View-Crop-Factor.aspx

You can also see the article by Rorslett that you continue to misread.

Outboard said:

A simple question was asked. DOF greater using a DX sensor or an FX sensor using a 105VR lens. Nothing more than that. That is the question I answered. My answer was and is that they are both the same.

Click to expand...

C'mon guys, you almost start to sound like Canonians - oops...

1. Put a 105VR on a D300 or a D3, take pictures at the same distance & aperture => DOF is the same. Outboard is right (BUT framing is totally different).

2. To get similar framing, you have to move closer with the D3 => D300 has one stop more DOF. Leif is right.

And with all due respect, Outboard, Leif actually never questioned #1.

Best regards,

Ilkka

I can't argue with that Ilkka. Well, maybe the Canon bit. At least you didn't mention dpreview ...

At the Birdwatching Fair today I headed straight for the Nikon stand and asked the same question. Guess what? Yet another answer and a different one, a very confident answer! There is a difference, a surprising one, the FX will give less DOF.

Say what you like. Doesn't really matter to me anyway, the D700 is beyond by budget, but for those that are interested do check the facts before you buy.

Sweet dreams

Dipper said:

Yet another answer and a different one, a very confident answer! There is a difference, a surprising one, the FX will give less DOF.

Click to expand...

Actually that is the very answer Leif gave you in the post #27... but basically, yes, they are right at Nikon: larger sensor + similar framing => less DOF :t:.

Best regards,

Ilkka

Thank you, I do like a simple, understandable answer. :t: