I accept all yours and Moose's arguments... as well as my own. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
Jeff Keller wrote:
> I was probably much too terse ...
>
> Yes a 4x5 camera can give comparable DOF/diffraction limited results
> (without tilts) to a 35mm SLR but who would want to do that?
>
> Realistically there won't be very many Canon lenses that are optimized for
> the smaller sensor, so choosing between 5Dii and 7D may be more influenced
> by features/ergonomics rather than weight or optics. However Moose does like
> to use wide range zooms (28-200 Tamron IIRCC) which are quite likely to
> exist for smaller sensors and be lighter.
>
> People using larger sensors are generally doing it because they want better
> image quality than is attainable with DOF/diffraction limited optics (either
> take pictures where DOF is less demanding or want portions of the scene
> OOF). Personally I can't imagine wanting a tilt lens for a four thirds
> camera, nor could I imagine being happy with a 4x5 that didn't have tilt. I
> think I understand and more or less agree with both you and the empirical AG
> ... and would guess Moose probably isn't confused about his attraction to
> the 7D.
>
> When I go after macro I'll take either my Canon (with OM macro lenses) or
> Olympus four thirds and leave the LF Canham home so for me small format wins
> ... and probably prefer four thirds to full 35mm sensor size except for my
> greater accumulation of OM Zuikos than 4/3 Zuikos.
>
> Jeff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chuck Norcutt [mailto:chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 8:01 PM
> To: Olympus Camera Discussion
> Subject: Re: [OM] [OT] - Advice wanted about 5D2
>
> From your same source: "..., the diffraction-limited depth of field is
> the same for all sensor sizes. In other words, if one were to use the
> smallest aperture before diffraction became significant, all sensor
> sizes would produce the same depth of field-- even though the
> diffraction limited aperture will be different."
>
> I stick by my calculations which used diffraction limited apertures for
> each sensor. f/6.3 for the 7D and f/10 for the 5D Mk II. I also stick
> by my comment that the lens requirements to reach near to diffraction
> limited performance will be easier for the 5D Mk II.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> Jeff Keller wrote:
>> See
>> http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm
>> "Depth of Field Requirements" halfway down.
>>
>> For macro needing DOF, small format wins.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chuck Norcutt [mailto:chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 5:15 PM
>> To: Olympus Camera Discussion
>> Subject: Re: [OM] [OT] - Advice wanted about 5D2
>>
>> There might be perfectly fine reasons to get a 7D vs 5D Mk II but depth
>> of field for landscape shots will not be one of them. Although shorter
>> focal lengths lead to greater depth of field, the larger magnification
>> required from the smaller sensor leads to lesser depth of field.
>> Diffraction also places limits and tends to be the equalizer.
>>
>> **snip
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>>
>> Moose wrote:
>>
>>> As I am usually working for the opposite of Dawid's shallow plane of
>>> focus, I've be wondering if a 7D might not be a better step for me
>>> than 5DII. The 15-85/3.5-5.6 (24-136 eq.) appears to be a very fine
>>> lens for it.
>>>
>>> Multi Mode Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|