ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ส.ค. 2024
- Read the full article about this here: fstoppers.com/...
Check out our other video on lens compression here: • Lens Compression Doesn...
Does sensor size affect your depth of field? That's what we explain in this video using a full frame Nikon D850 and a micro four thirds GH5.
If you need a website, save 10% on your first purchase with Squarespace by visiting: www.squarespace.com/fstoppers
Gear and Workflow Recommendations:
Our Favorite Gear -fstoppers.com/...
Music
Artlist.io - bit.ly/36hgJal
Epidemic Sound - bit.ly/3aaE7GJ
Software
Adobe Creative Cloud - bit.ly/3hjVXdE
Luminar 4 - skylum.evyy.net...
Capture One - captureone.38d4...
Support Fstoppers by shopping at:
B&H - www.bhphotovid...
Amazon - amzn.to/3hkTEXS
Follow Fstoppers on Instagram: / officialfstoppers
Follow Lee and Patrick's Puerto Rico Instagram: / fstopperspr
Summary on how to get more bokeh:
1) Have long focal length (80mm>50mm>35mm), step closer to the subject (closer>further), and have a wider aperture (f1.4 > f1.8 > f2 etc)
2) Keeping everything the same, the full-frame camera and crop sensor will have the same level of bokeh. The only difference is that the crop sensor's image will be more "zoomed in". AKA it crops in.
3) If you want to have the same level of "zoomness", you'll have to a) step back a bit with the crop sensor b) use a shorter focal length (wider) lens to get the same field of view. However, stepping back or using a wider lens will decrease bokeh as said in #1.
4) To solve this issue, you'll need to use a wider aperture lens.
Conclusion: sensor size doesn't create more bokeh. The focal length, distance from the subject, and aperture size determine the depth of field. Crop sensors only zoom in (or crop) photos.
Very informative video and comment, thank you for that
your a g
Or uhhh, just use a lens meant for the sensor size of the camera you have. Micro 4/3 sensor? Buy a Micro 4/3 lense and you will have no crop or "zoomness".
The correct statement is " Larger Sensors produce a shallower DOF at the same field of view"
and that would be add more focal length for full frame by 1.6x, so yeah the key is focal length
Best summary ever.
Pretty stupid statement. Sensor size has nothing to do with DOF. Larger sensor just need larger aperture or longer focal length. Sensor size itself doesn't affect DOF in any way.
@@Alex-fk3ni He said "at the same field of view", which is correct, and a good summary of how this practically plays out in the field
@@Alex-fk3ni you cant use a camera without a lens bigbrain
0:03 as you have said, "It does. But probably not in the way that you think." So it does.
Of course its not the sensor size itself that affects the DOF, but the focal length adjustment that we need to do to achieve the same image coverage. And when we make the composition the same, the one with the bigger sensor would produce the shallower DOF.
Truee
That’s because not only you need to convert the focal length to match but also the F stop which I feel he missed in this video, if you do both you will get exactly the same image. A FF camera with a 100mm lens at F 2.8 to match that you would need a 50mm at F 1.4 and to make the matter worst to match the exposure you also have to convert the iso to but now things get more confusing so I will leave it there 🤣
What MrKockabilly said.
@@CABRALCREATES Do you know how to match the iso? is there some formula for it?
@@phqnomenon yes there’s! You’ve to square the crop factor. If you’ve a GH5 the crop factor is 2x crop so it’s easy to figure out, let’s say you set your ISO to 400 on the GH5 to match that to a full frame you’ve to multiply 400 x 4 (1,600) if you match the 1-Focal length 2- Aperture 3-Iso you will get the same exact result the problem is camera companies are not making enough fast lenses for micro 4/3 cameras to match FF cameras
The best explanation on 'depth of field' I've ever come across. Good scientific approach; you identified all relevant variables (aperture, focal length, length to subject and sensor size) and showed what happens if you change one of them.
This video is not wrong but the way information is presented may cause miss information. The sensor don't produce shallow depth of field, the distance to the subject and focal length does. The thing is that the crop and aspect of the sensor dictate the chose of both (distance and Lens selection).
This is exactly the way I would put it.
Mi phone camera's tiny sensor is not at fault of the lack of bokeh; we have to blame the 4 mm lens that the sensor needs in order to have a decent field of view.
well said
I could not have said it shorter or better.
Brainstorming Films amen
You lost me at "miss information." So, if information gets married, will she be "Mrs. Information?"
So no, but yes
So so, but actually its confusing
Exactly
No, but no. Moving closer or using a longer lens does.
so no, but no, but still, you will get a shallower depth of field with a full frame camera ;)
yeahhh a metal head
This is helpful, and I can see why people get confused. So if I got this right.
If you have FF and MFT, with same camera to subject distance, same lens, and same aperture, both will produce the same level of DOF or blurriness/bokeh in background. But the field of view will be different with the MFT being a much tighter shot.
To match the cameras for FOV, where the composition matches, you would have to change either the camera to subject distance or the lens.
If you change the lens, it will match the FOV, but because it is a different lens, it will have a different DOF. But that has nothing to do with the sensor, but the lens.
And if you use the same lens, but change the camera to subject distance, you get the same FOV, but there is some difference in DOF because you changed the distance.
Thanks for doing this. It is easier to remember when seeing a real life example.
agreed
Good and straightforward explanation! But in the process you have shown that practically speaking...sensor size matters. Because it is the relationship between the sensor size and the desired content which results in the image. So even though sensor size does not at all affect depth of field, the sensor size will dictate lens focal length-which will immensely affect depth of field! Same reason that medium and large format cameras, with relatively slow, but very long lenses, still can get great subject isolation and good bokeh. By debunking the myth, you actually have proved the point, that sensor size matters!
You saw there's no response to the Facts..it's all some useless, fake debate, trying to keep the ship from sinking...
I'm convinced the guy makes inflammatory controversial videos to get a high amount of views. It's pretty cringey.
@@zr1129 i call it stupidity...
"Smaller sensors produce a shallower depth of field, because they have a higher pixel density."
?
??
???
?????
???????
Why would you want to further confuse people on this, WHY ?????????
Yes, hes wrong when he said that. :)
Yeah that sentence itself is incorrect, which is ironic since the title of the video says that sensor size doesn't affect depth of field.
As he explained though, higher pixel density does make depth of field shallower. I think he was trying to say that "smaller sensors often have higher pixel density, which produces a shallower depth of field" and just got the ordering mixed a bit.
Do you really believe that if you shoot a D3 and a D850 the D850 is gonna have a bigger bokeh???
Yes, the D850 will have shallower depth of field (not by a whole lot though). More pixels let's you distinguish more colours in a photo, and more pixels also let's you better distinguish how in focus different parts of the photo are.
The same lens/aperture on a D5 as a D850 has the same interaction with light, but digital cameras have to record that infinite amount of light information onto a fixed resolution sensor. So on a D5 you will lose more information than on a D850, which makes the area of "acceptable focus" larger. This effectively makes the depth of field deeper.
Ray J Wow!
How do you know these things... I am impressed!
I already knew all of this but Lee elaborated it perfectly and easy to understand. All you need from this video is the summary at the end. FF sensor doesn't create shallower DoF but the fact that you need a longer lens or moving closer to the subject to get the same point of view does.
Nate Kong This video substitutes theory for the reality of the real world. *Can* you get equally shallow depth of field with a small sensor? Sure. But given the gear that’s available, their prices, etc., good luck matching the DoF from a full frame 50mm f/1.2 on a MFT system. “Can it be done?!” Probably. But how about we talk about the world we actually live in? 🙈
From what I've researched (and Tony Northrup also confirmed this) a MFT 50mm f/1.4 would be equivalent to a FF 100mm f/2.8. If you test this scenario, you should get nearly identical DOF.
Focal length doesn't matter in the way you think it does, the aperture is more important. 200mm f/2.8 means an aperture f/2.8 of ~71.43mm while 20mm f/2.8 equates to an aperture diametre of ~7.14mm. This is EXACTLY why the crop factor applies to both the focal length AND the aperture. 50mm f/2 with a crop of 2x has the same field of view AND DoF as a 100mm f/4 FF lens.
The distance to your subject matters a lot since it goes into the equation squared.
DoF ≈ 2u²Nc / f² = 2u²c / fD
N = f / D
u: distance to subject in mm
N: f-stop/-number
f: focal length in mm
D: diameter of the aperture/entry pupil in mm
c: circle of confusion (acceptable circle of confusion, that is perceived as a single point)
c is actually often very arbitrarily picked but it should probably be around 1.5x to 2x the size of a photo site.
The f-stop is not absolute, it is the ratio between focal length and the diametre of the so called entry pupil (or easier: aperture). N = f / D with N being the f-stop, f the focal length and D the diametre of the entry pupil. Of course, f and D are in mm. This also shows that the f-stop is unitless because mm / mm cancels each other out and you'll end up with a unitless factor. This is why you cannot just apply the crop factor to the focal length.
People fail to apply the crop factor to both the focal length AND the f-number/-stop.
This is great information for people to have and helps dispel notions of things like "equivalent aperture" which only serves to confuse people.
There is one point that was left out, though. You showed how the same lens at the same distance on FF can be cropped for the same result as APS/MFT. However, what is not shown is that because FF has a larger field of view, you can get physically closer to a subject to take a similarly framed shot without cropping. Take a portrait head shot for instance. 85mm FF, you frame in around the head and shoulders, and get a shallow depth of field. To get this same framing in APS or MFT, you only have two options: back up, or use a wider lens. Both of these options, as you demonstrated, will increase the depth of field, and therefore decrease "bokeh".
You can always crop FF down to equivalent APS/MFT view, but there's no way to magically uncrop APS/MFT.
Slyest Fox That’s exactly what’s wrong with this video. How photographers actually do their job vs. some theoretical reasoning that tries to “disprove” the actual nature of things. Who would ever want to crop in on a 16mp MFT sensor anyway?
Yes but by cropping down to the APS-C size you will lose a little less then half the megapixels. A D850 at 45mp will be a 19mp image cropped to a D500 image uncropped is 20.9.
Ignore everything he says skip to 6:00
Thats all you need to know.
Thanks lol
But it's not just about Knowing the answers is it? It's about understanding? When you understand, you create your own answers? Memory can rob us of Facts we have swallowed, but knowledge and understanding stays with us!
i AGREE, THE FIRST 6 MIN WERE TOO ALL OVER THE PLACE. (stupid caps lock lol)
Thanks mate
lol thanks
Basically, having a larger sensor in and of itself does not mean a photo will have greater bokeh. However, due to having a larger sensor, the photographer must either use a longer focal length or physically step closer to the subject, which creates the shallower depth of field. I'ts not the sensor itself, it is the action required to match the same frame as APS-C or MFT sensors. This video wonderfully explains the issue, in my opinion. Great video!
This quote from dpreview sums up your videos thus far:
Peter Cockerell
"The compression you get using a long lens isn't a result of the lens, so much as the distance between your subject, your background, and the camera."
God but these pedantic distinctions are tiresome. It may not be a result of the lens, but its observability is. If I take a shot of layered, misty mountain peaks in the far distance with a 400mm + 1.4x teleconverter, the "compression" (for want of a better term) is very obvious. If I take the same shot with a 16mm wide angle, the area covered by the original photo will occupy about 0.1% of the wide-angle shot, and will be totally lost in the rest of the image.
No, the 640mm didn't create the compression, it just enables you to actually see it. I think most people understand this, implicitly, even if they don't necessarily articulate it. People who make videos like this are much more annoying in my opinion than people who say "lens compression". It's not even new or original. The same tired "explanations" come round time and time again.
PS, thanks Peter.
It is the same as folks that argue that sensor size doesn't affect DOF, yes yes, we all know the tech behind this but the point is there is a reason folks go full frame and medium, large format , and aren't shooting some cheap nikon coolpix camera, one of them is the sensor is bigger, and one of those reasons is it affords shallower dof in that particular package.
PS, yes this is a total triggering video ;-)
Thank you for not clowning yourself into long useless goofy intros, and actually going direct to the point. Subscribed!
"To keep this simple we're going to ignore the variables that are the key to the actual subject of discussion when the subject comes up." (Slightly paraphrased.)
Is that why this was so damned confusing?
Thank you for posting the video. I am so sick of hearing people claiming that larger sensors having a shallower DoF. The thing, though, is when you try to explain it to them, as you do in the video, some people still would refuse to understand it. Note that I say "refuse to understand" but not "unable to understand".
But at the same field of view the FF is shallower that's what we are trying to tell you guys but all you here in that sentence is : FF Shallower 🤦🏻♂️ God we're saying if you get the same field of view with both a crop and a FF then the FF depth of field will be shallower. But if you take both 200mm at 2.8 at the same distance then you get the same depth of field BUT you get less field of view on the crop because the crop sensor is more zoomed in god damn is it that hard ?
7:55
It’s great to see an explanation of DoF that’s based on optics science (physics) rather than uninformed opinion and passion for a particular sensor format. Bravo!
I shoot w M43 so no bias here, but full frame cameras are better for shallowed depth of field because perspective matters a lot. Being able to get a less cropped image of the same depth of field is essential because we can’t all just shoot with super long focal lengths.
The real inforamtion is that at same f-stop and same FOV a bigger sensor produces a shallower depth of field. This is missleading because you don´t use the equalient focal-length, you use the same...
just on the spot! I am sorry to see that misinformation is presented in the video. Also apart from the sensor size the FOV or Focal Length has nothing to with the depth of field as long as the reproduction size is the same. What he calls as depth of field with a longer focal lens is just the compression effect, the reason why many portrait photographers prefer to work with lenses as long or longer than 85 mm.
If you doing something that will make FOV same, it is practical not technical (physic).
This is example to make this issue more clear: I am standing in front of model with my Linhof 4x5 camera and 150mm lens, aperture wide open lets say at f5.6.
I cut the 4x5inch negative to make 36x24mm negative. From a full body shot now I got a head shot.
The depth of field between two formats is same, because it is from the same negative. That's what we call "cropped sensor".
Sorry for my English
@@maspriyayi No it is not, the negative you cut has less depth of field as when you blow it to same size errors show more.
The formula for depth of field is: D = s / (1 ± N × c × (1000 × s - f) / f²) where plus gives the near limit and minus the far limit. s is the distance, N aperture value, f focal length and c circle of confusion which depends on the negative/sensor size. For full frame it is 0.03 mm. Replace 1000 with 304.8 if you use feet instead of meters for s.
I find one problem with your demonstration: you are using a full frame lens for both cameras. What happens if you use the same focal length, same distance and same f-stop but a full frame lens for the full frame camera and a different lens for the cropped sensor? Will there be a difference in the depth of field?
I would love to see a video about this comparison.
This is so simple to understand but have people arguing forever. The reason why you end up with a different depth of field with different sensor size cameras is because you set them up different from each other to get the same picture. That's all folks.
This concept is finally starting to take roots! But be prepared for hordes of folks who aren't prepared to take a comprehensive approach to understanding the subject!
Ya, the early guys like Tony Northrup and that Canadian guy who's still popular would go on and on about not being able to get as shallow of DOF with cropped sensors, and it not gathering as much light as a full frame, and using the crop factor to adjust for exposure even!! All sorts of nonsense. A sensor for the most part is just a piece of film... it doesn't know nor care what lens you have on it, or what settings you have set. It literally just captures the light that hits it, no matter what it's size. The size doesn't change anything, it's just cropped.
@@urwholefamilydied I would like to disagree. Larger sensors have larger individual pixel sizes, when having the same resolution as a smaller sensor. And the light gathering ability is proportional to the surface area of each pixel. A larger pixel will let more light in. So you would get much better low light performance.
But yes, DOF is a property of the lens and not the sensor. But indirectly, composition starts from the FOV, for which you would need a longer focal length lens for a larger sensor to get the same FOV as a smaller sensor with a smaller lens. This will affect the DOF.
@@Wildridefilms yes... it's why larger format cameras are known for being able to achieve much shallower DOF. And why really small sensors or film are known for not getting shallow DOF.
Larger sensors do not produce shallower depth of fields however all of these factors affect how the depth of fields are achieved in comparison to smaller sensor:
1) Larger sensor size lead to photographer moving closer to the subject to get the same field of view (yes more versatile but one important factor lager sensor you didn't mentioned gather more light and hence affect Exposure Triangle too)
2) Longer focal length at closer distance due to point 1) further generates shallower depth of field effect
3) Lower F stop lens further exaggerate the shallower depth of field effect
In short, all of these 3 factors (distance/focal length/aperture) in place, you get the creamiest bokeh or shallowest depth of field. The opposite is correct too. In photography, all 3 work in complement of each other at all times so this video title should be the "Depth of Field Triangle" similar to that of the "Exposure Triangle" with a highlight that "large sensors do not directly produce shallower depth of field".
I get where you are coming from but when viewers see the title, some will disagree.
Come on, facts are so last century. People need to FEEL like they’re being told the truth, or scared into listening to a veiled marketing pitch. The biggest shysters in media are the ones who rely on false provocation (aka “triggering” everyone) over reputation and skill. Looks like fStoppers are circling the drain. Shame.
+++ best explanation here
Depth of field triangle! I like the way you explain :)
Really good explanation of how aperture, focal length, and distance affect DoF, but the sensor stuff could really confuse people. The larger sensor gives you a larger field of view at a given focal length and distance from subject. So you are able to achieve shallower depth of field for a given composition with the larger sensor.
Totally agree with you... If you look at a DOF chart; the larger sensor (needing less enlarging to attain a specific size product) has, if shot from the same distance and with the same focal length, a wider DOF than the smaller sensor.
However, as you mentioned, photographers will usually back up or use a longer lens with a larger sensor which does produce de facto, a more shallow DOF.
question: at 4:41 the guy have printed shirt that say "nikon d850 tamron 70-200 f22" at 4:42 says "nikon d850 tamron 70-200 f2.8" how did you change the shirt without move the guy and where do i buy that shirts
saul gonzalez Should this be funny?
no
you must be fun at parties
Is this is a serious question? 🤔😂
(If so, it's just text overlay)
Come on, now you are just triggering people...
media.giphy.com/media/ui1hpJSyBDWlG/giphy.gif
Called click bait... TH-cam it
No sir, what he is saying in right... there is also a lot of confusion among some people that a, say 50mm f1.8 for full frame camera has a different f stop on an APSC camera, which is also wrong... using additional lenses, such as speedboosters, is different... to sum up a a given lens of a given aperture is same on any format...say again a 135mm f 2.8 is always that, a 135mm f 2.8...
sundar iyengar except for the fact that is provides a different angle of view depending on the sensor size.
A 135 f2.8 will have different dof depending on its distance from the subject. To get the same shot as ff on apsc, you'd need to back up. The light intensity remains the same, since f stop is calculated by focal length and aperture size.
Apsc back up so much when compared to ff, that a ff at 135 f2.8 will have the same dof as 135 f4 on apsc given the same angle of view (same composition).
Firestarter Agreed... That's why I mentioned about image magnification... To illustrate, if a photograph is taken on a 50mm lens at say, f2.8 and the same photograph taken with a 100mm lens at f2.8, if the mage of 50mm lens is cropped to that of a photograph taken with a 100mm lens at f2.8, both the photograph will have the same depth of field... May be, the out of focus area (bokhe) May be different, depending on the lens construction and other aspects and considerations... The TH-cam video is nice and good.
If you keep the lens in the same place, use the lumix with a speed booster. (Say a .71) that cuts out 29% of the field of view, right? So that would mean you’d need to move the camera back less. Correct? Also the light could be converging faster with a speed booster shallowing the depth of field additionally? (Gh5 shooter over here)
Yup. Nice video. A 16mm f/1.4 on a crop sensor is a 16mm lens, it's just cropped to a 24mm FOV. 16mm won't give you the same DOF as 24mm. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.
Well explained... One of the most clearly explained... Northrups video seems more complicated
That's because he explains it correctly. Northrups videos are specific enough not to be misunderstood.
Distance from the subject is the key.
The depth of field changes noticeably if you from 135 to medium format or even more, large format. But aps-c and full frame sensors don't have big enough of a difference.
"Stephen DeNagy
2 years ago
Good and straightforward explanation! But in the process you have shown that practically speaking...sensor size matters. Because it is the relationship between the sensor size and the desired content which results in the image. So even though sensor size does not at all affect depth of field, the sensor size will dictate lens focal length-which will immensely affect depth of field! Same reason that medium and large format cameras, with relatively slow, but very long lenses, still can get great subject isolation and good bokeh. By debunking the myth, you actually have proved the point, that sensor size matters!'.....
Now that is out of the way, and thank you Stephen, let's move forward. Why are the ones who love to shoot 4/3 the ONLY ones transfixed on trying to prove their sensors are equal to the others? If we shoot full frame and medium format we collectively do not care what you think..PERIOD.. Apparently, we are strong enough to carry the gear, use the gear, pay the price for the gear, and we do not have to make a constant defensive stance about it. This is so old, tired, dusty, and not a real debate, because these brands are a BUSINESS, and here to make money. We have the option of shooting 4/3, medium format, and film in the same bag, same house, and use what we want, when we need it. So this 4/3 fake azz debate is nothing more than some twisted Napoleonic complex ,trying to prove it's worth, even though 4/3 cameras are already amazing.
It's like the pretty girl with poor self esteem, who cannot see her own beauty, and it's sad. My first digital was 4/3 and was an amazing E510,great build, great images, and then I moved on. I did not leave 4/3 because it's bad, I just left because I wanted another option, and it's my money. I went to APS-C, enjoyed that, and went to full frame, because I had some money, I could handle the weight/size, and my camera has an APS-C mode. The FACT is that we can talk science, pseudo science, opinions, viewpoints, and whatever ,yet the FACT remains, the WORLD buys APS-C and full frame, period. That means if I want to start a camera company and make billions, I will not do it with 4/3 .That means if I want to offer the best AF, I will not make 4/3 unless I can fix that issue. No, we can shoot manual in any format, so that's not a valid point either. Feel free to keep droning on and on while the ship sinks..
Yup, DoF is similar to compression/distortion, a larger sensor doesnt affect it, but adjusting to get the same field-of-view does... which people often do when you have a bigger sensor.
Which is the part people seem to conveniently forget when they try to defend their "NUH UH, IT DOES CHANGE IT." position.
so it does produce more depth of field because larger sensor requires a lot less distance to produce the same field of view at the same focal length. (good luck figuring that word out)
Abdul Ghani you've failed to understand the lesson. Go back and try again.
Troll Of Justice you've failed to troll me. go back and try again.
Abdul Ghani depends on what you mean. If by depth of field you mean background blur, then yes , you have to move back to get the same field of view as the full frame when using a crop sensor. It's the distance walking back that makes the background less blurry, not the sensor size by itself.
The Post Color Blog i mean more shallower depth of field. i didn't include shallower
My iPhone is the same as a Leica M10 with equivalent lens. Cool. Let’s all buy a Sony.
Amazing how many ppl disliked the video. Some people are just resistant to knowledge. Your explanation was really good.
I love how people get so upset, argue and nit-pick about this. He just SHOWED YOU what you need to know. Different tools for different jobs. I use both FF and M43. Under your average shooting conditions I get the exact same results from either. You all can keep bickering...I'll keep shooting :)
He complicates a bit by introducing physics... I'd explain like this - equal focal will give you equal DoF at the same aperture. Take a photo on a FF and crop it by 1.5 (or so) and you'll get the same photo as if you shoot with that same lens on an APS-C body.
The smaller field of view on an APS-C is what makes you go further away from the subject or take lower focal length to get larger part of the scene - both of these will increase your DoF... but obviously, neither of the two is the sensor :-)
So the 2x crop of a MFT camera doesn’t actually convert the 50mm to a 100mm, it crops to only show a 100mm FOV.
That is correct! The sensor literally 'crops' which is why APS-C sensors were (and still are) often called 'crop' sensors. Because the smaller sensor crops the image circle that is produce by lens, more so than a 'full frame' (35mm) sensor.
Otherwise cellphones would make multiple thousand dollars telephoto lenses useless
Not always. The lens designed exclusively for apsc and mft cameras are smaller to begin with. The focal lengths could be converted to FF equivalent but there's no enlargement of the photos.
@@tamakakashii7865 focal length is just a lenght, a measure. It doesn't matter if it's for a phone camera or a hubble telescope sensor. A 50mm lens designed for MFT is still a 50mm lens and would be equivalent to a 100mm FF. I've seen some fixed lens cameras advertising their focal length range with the 35mm equivalent length with an *asterisk that points to a foot note saying so, but they still has to specify that, because the real measurement is not that. And I don't think I've ever seen a MFT or a APS-C interchangeable lens being advertised like that, but I'm not too big on lenses models so if you could give me an example
@@TwskiTV you are correct on the focal length being a standard measurement. I was replying to the person above saying that image will be enlarged when viewed on computer, which is not when the crop happens.
The sensor itself, or in the old days, the film size, does not change the Depth of Field, 3 things do; distance to subject, ƒ-stop and focal length. The "normal" angle of view of a 35mm camera is 50mm, on medium format 6x6cm it is 80 mm and on a 4" x5" sheet film view camera it is 150mm. This means that the fact of the matter is for the same distance and ƒ stop a larger film/sensor size will provide shallower depth of field for the same angle of view. This is an optical fact that cannot be changed.
Finally a true no nonsens, no emotionaly driven video on tis subject, thank you verry much !!!
Just my 2cts...
That answer was an emotional one. Unfortunatly most photographer, including lot calling themself "pro" just don't have any clue about optics. Optics is a science, it's a branch of physics and one that has been well studied since more several millenium. It define precies terms such as focal length and depth of field. And the way all this works is all backed up with centuries of scientifical experiments and studies. Those are now established fact ! Ho yes i know the way the real worl works doesn't exactly fit the way most of you photographers want to see it, but that doesn't change what it is. I know that hurt your feelings, but the real world doesn't care about your feelings, it's been there far befor you born and will still be there long after you're dead.
So you think explaining how things realy work is "misleading" ? hahem , well yes you are right, this could lead people to question manufacture's marketing BS. That's probably no good.
So her's the deal, that guy put up a video backed up by both centuries of physics science and show exemples that demonstrate that they actualy work that way. So you call it BS ? ok then go on, do the same work, give us some proof of what you pretend, back it up with citations of scientific work that goes on your way...
Unles that, what you say is just trolling.
Just my 2cts...
Is it the lens (aka focal length) or is the aperture? Fullframe vs m43 conversion in the example at 7:18. where you keep the same aperture. With the 50mm 2.8 on GH5 you have actually a 100mm f5.6 compared to fullframe and that's why you have a greater depth of field. So it's not because you use a shorter lens but a smaller aperture (5.6 vs 2.8). I wonder if Tony Northrup agrees on that. I just saw UCreations pointed to the same:)
1) The image that comes out of the lens is always the same (2.8 on FF is 2.8 on Crop as well)
2) Background blur has 3 factors: Aperture, Focus Distance, Focal Length
3) To get the same picture with a crop camera like FF you have to back up a little bit due to the 1.6 crop ----> The focus distance gets further away ----> Less Background Blur
I think most people like me also thought bigger sensors created more DOF and that's what we wanted but in reality we wanted more FOV.
Same as why Large Format camera's seemed to have more DOF but it was always more FOV.
Other confusion people get is that when you move your subject away from the background but still have the subject same distance from the camera the DOF in reality is still the same but your background will go out of focus more, hence it would look like you have shallower DOF.
Love these series.
Two things;
1. Let's take crop factors and turn them into DOFL ratios (depth of field/focal length). I own a full frame Pentax K1 and an Olympus OMD EM1 4/3 and have done a lot of comparison pictures. If you are trying to take the same picture (field of view and framing); a) light gathering is the same i.e. f2.8 on one lens/camera is the same as f2.8 on the other; b) what changes is the focal length of the lens you are using. A shot with a 35mm lens setting in full frame is a 17.5mm shot in micro 4/3 - they look as close to identical as two different systems can produce. However the simple fact remains that one shot is using a 35mm lens and the other a 17.5mm lens, and where this is visible is in, as noted above, depth of field, by a factor of, conveniently, 2:1 (4/3 shot at f2.8 has same DOF as full frame shot at f5.6). It's a great ratio because it tells you both what focal length to set your lens to for equivalently framed shots, as well as what the relative change to DOF is. Leaving aside the rabbit hole of pixel density and noise and the quantum physics of photons, in purely mechanical terms, it's that simple. The DOFL of full frame to micro 4/3 is 2:1. The DOFL of full frame to medium format is (about) 1:1.5. Full frame to APS C is 1.6:1. Full frame to 1" is 3:1. Etc.
2. Why is shallower DOF always talked about as a plus? In macro, it is often the opposite; the added depth of field of 4/3 is often just what you want. The same debate exists in video, where similar formats are being used. Here's an exert from a very thorough review of video equipment (not actually aimed at addressing DOF at all) - 'For many people, a chief benefit of a larger sensor is the ability to achieve shallower depth of field. Frame a shot with a lens at f/2.8 with a full-frame camera and it will appear shallower than a shot with the same lens, framing, and aperture on a Super 35 sensor. Being able to separate your subject from the background using shallow depth of field is a definite component to achieving a cinematic look. So bigger is better then, right? Well, not necessarily. You can still achieve cinematic shallow depth of field on Super 35, Micro Four Thirds, and even Super 16 formats. Also, the shallower the depth of field is, the harder it is to keep a subject in focus during the shot, even for an experienced focus puller. Workable depth of field might mean stopping down to f/4 or even f/5.6 on full frame and losing some stops of light, while a Super 35 camera might be fine at f/2.8' -
You don't always need shallow depth of field to make the image look good.
It's more of a matter of taste.
On the other hand if you choose to use full frame, you ALWAYS have to carry the big camera body and the big lenses.
If you choose to use "mirrorless" full frame, the lenses will be even bigger(and more expensive).
Just look at those huge mounts.
Why do you feel the need to make your choice appear good? It has nothing to do with the Video. It's as if I was trying to make points on why you should shoot Nikon instead of Canon.
FF Vs APS-C is a valid discussion with pros and cons on both sides, and everyone decides differently, but frankly this video is about a physical explanation of Dof.
Besides, to answer your argument:
On a FF body you don't need to take a FF lens. Modern bodies can shoot crop with an APS-C lens. You have the choice if you want to take light or heavy lenses with you.
On APS-C bodies you can only shoot crop, so no choice there.
People always make it out like you ALWAYS HAVE to put FF lenses on a FF body.
There are still many valid points in favour of APS-C bodies, but the one you named is none of these.
yes you do. shallow wins every time, come on up to the big leagues croppy man.
@@VisaxLP
"FF Vs APS-C is a valid discussion with pros and cons on both sides...."
==
Depth of field isn't one of the them.
@@jamskof
"shallow wins every time,....."
==
it's a matter of taste.
Anyway, neither of them are selling very well,
It's losing the market to the cell phone cameras.
Do you know any cell phone which has the shallow depth of field with big aperture?
This was really well explained
@adam nelson don't try, these people have some stuff right but not all. but no one wants to understand it anyway so no point in trying.
Also 7:21 if the D850 was stopped down to 2x f2.8 both images would look identical, but people are stupid enough to multiply only the focal length. =/
Since I'm no expert on the physics of light, please explain in further detail - perhaps a vid?
@adam nelson since I'm no expert in the physics of light, please explain what is wrong in this info.
@Durst i don't have a crop sensor camera, i have only 1 6D, the only thing i can do is to try and crop manually to represent the 2x crop, and use a 50mm lens and a 100mm lens that i have and will work. There is also another problem as people stated below and don't understand why. when you look at the two photos at 7:20 you will see that the field of view is not 100% the same. Look at the columns behind him, they appear in different places in the photos. This can occur because of focus breathing. Best thing to google it to see what exactly that means. But in short it means that 100mm lens if focused at its minimum distance will appear as a 80mm lens instead, and you if focus to infinity it might show as a 110mm lens. This is because when you focus the focus element has to move and when that happens it changes the focal length a bit. Those number i have you are completely random to explain. Each lens has its own focus breathing problem. There are some professional lenses for video that cost 10 000 dollars that are specifically designed to not have that focus breathing problems and you can actually see it in movies.
@Quetzalcoalt Thank you for reminding me about focus breathing. It never occurred to me that *that* would have an effect in his findings (as displayed in this vid). I heard of it from Matt Granger (or was it Tony Northrup?). I rely on those two photographers as good and generally accurate sources of information (however, they do sometimes make mistakes such as in the vid above (by Fstoppers)). I remember one vid by Matt (or was it Tony) where they were comparing Nikon, Canon, Tamron (or was it Sigma?) 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses. The person doing the vid (I think it was Matt) erroneously assumed that the "Nikon lens was the most accurate" (wow, talk about personal bias, LOL) and then went on to explain that the other 2 lenses were "off" when comparing the total frame of the pictures (from all the lenses) at 70mm and 200mm each. Within a day or two (a week?) I found out about focus breathing and started lusting for cinema lenses. LOL. Then I calmed down as I realized that my search for perfection was kicking in again. (Perfectionism can be a ridiculous burden.)
Thanks again.
Finally!!! Explanation of DOF difference for cropped/FF cameras in the RIGHT way.
@Fstoppers
All you say is correct, but in the last part you missed to explain how you can get the exact same shot on a smaller sensor.
If you keep the composition of your 100mm F2.8 shot, you can get the same DOF on M43 by matching the actual physical aperture diameter of both the 50mm and the 100mm lens. Your 100mm F2.8 lens has an aperture diameter of 35.7mm. To get the same aperture diameter on the GH5 with a 50mm lens, you would need an F1.4 aperture.
I just bought a full frame to get rid of those calculations with aparture, focul length, iso & depth of field
Little hint...
Those calculations mean nothing.
@@looneyburgmusic what do you mean?
@@jeepjoseph9036 Unless you are explicitly looking to create with a cropped sensor the same kind of photo you would get with a Full, (and why would you?), there is zero reason to calculate for full-frame - just learn how to take the best photo's possible with the camera you have and run with it.
I started with 35mm film, back when I was in High School in the 80's, and only recently finally made the jump full-time to a DSLR. Currently I'm using a Nikon D5600, and while I was running the math in my head when I first started out, I quickly learned I was wasting my time - as I naturally adapted to using a crop sensor body I stopped trying to capture a scene I was looking at the way I would have with my 35mm film body, and instead began framing the best shots I could with the Nikon, for the Nikon. I'm sure I will eventually upgrade to a full-frame, if only because my wife is always bugging me to give her the 5600, but I'm in no rush at all, I'm totally content with the results I've been getting with a crop sensor, and don't see any reason to rush out and spend more $$$.
Those calculations are the stupidest thing ever
@@TwskiTV yes they are worthless
But when you are pushing yourself & your camera to the limit the advantage of having a full frame can really help you.
I did notice that there was one aspect overlooked: actual aperture size. Changing the f/stop or changing the focal length while retaining the same f/stop both change the actual aperture size and hence DoF. Would have been interesting to have that also listed underneath the other data on the overlay.
Interested in this too
@@stephaneoliveira2495 The f-stop is focal length by the aperture diameter. If we maintain the same distance to subject (in order not to change perspective) then the blur circle is proportional only to the aperture diameter. In other words, the amount of blur is proportional to the ratio of focal length and f-stop. That's this video in a nutshell. Moving the camera only introduced an extra factor and unnecessary confusion.
For the same lens, same subject distance, smaller detector have shallower depth of field but not because they have a higher pixel density. Because for a same print size, same viewer distance, the proportion of circle of confusion relative to the photo size is higher for a smaller detector. For instance, print 36 cm wild a picture taken with a 36mm, you have magnified by a factor of ten, the circle of confusion are magnified by a factor of ten, print 36cm with an APS-C and you magnify the circle of confusion by 15 (the in focus point stays point in both case). The d.o.f is generally defined by a typical eye resolution power at a minimum eye focus distance (~ a third to a night of millimetre at 25cm) . Defining the d.o.f from pixel size is point less because usually when you look at a picture you do not see camera pixels.
They are good reason to say that usually a small system (often with a small detector) have a higher d.o.f, a pity you do not cover it more in your video to avoid confusion, in a more simple way. You want to make the same image with a large and a small detector, same image imply :
1. same perspective -> same position (same distance to subject)
2. same frame -> 1. imply that you have a shorter focal lens with the small detector (you cannot move).
3. same d.o.f -> Since 1 and 2 are fixed the only way is to have a higher aperture for the smaller detector system.
So after all that, if you want shallower DOF get a full frame or larger sensor. Same with your last video .. if you want bring the background in without changing the distance all the time use a longer lenses. In trying to debunk something you have ..... errrr confirmed it. Does not matter why but the above is true. Having said that .... thank you so much as I really enjoyed the science behind it all and the way you delivered it. Unfortunately people all over the place are mis quoting your videos or doing a crap job of trying to explain it while trying to show off in contradiction of widely held beliefs that are in fact, de facto true.... awesome !
Great VIDEO!
Thank you for helping me understand this. I never got an answer that really made sense to me.
Or more accurately, you can either use a different lens (e.g. M43 requires 2-times wider in terms of the stated aperture and 1/2 the focal length lens to be analogous in terms of FOV, light level, etc.of a FF camera), or you may be able to change the distance and exposure settings to get comparable DOF. However, it is not really accurate to state that the sensor doesn't affect the DOF, since you must compensate for it via a different lens or a different shooting solution and approach. Using your logic, you could theoretically state that megapixels doesn't dictate output resolution, since you might be able to shoot at a different distance and/or combine multiple shots to get the same final output resolution.
I know what you are trying to state, but I assume that you may be asserting this to either (1) make people who have a smaller sensor understand that they have a possible work-around in some instances, or (2) to generate a lot of views and comments by people like me who wish to correct/clarify your statements.
However, related to your secondary point, if (1and the "if" is critical), you have (1) a similar or greater pixel count on your small sensor camera and (2) you are not filling your frame with the subject and (3) you can justify cropping your image, and (4) there is a comparable shooting solution possible given your hardware and shooting conditions, that you can obtain a higher effective resolution with the smaller sensor camera. Wildlife photogs leverage this fact, which allows them to use smaller lenses (e.g. a 100-400mm on a M43 as an "equivalent" to a 200-800mm compared to a full frame sensor camera. That his is obviously not counting for the light lost if you have the same aperture lenses, since an f/2.8 FF is analogous to a f/1.4 on a M43 camera.
Andrew -- you are 100% correct. I have shot since the 60's and worked with digital since the 90's as a professional who shoots for various magazines, and newspapers. In consulting for an independent photographic technology review company, I find a lot of similar confused explanations like this one from F-Stoppers. In contrast to FS, your explanation is accurate and complete, and I think you should be working for FS... or, at the very least, doing their accuracy checks for them!
Thank you Ms Munceli. I am glad to see that many on this site caught F-Stoppers poorly structured analysis and misleading conclusions. However, they did manage to confuse and derail many others. I see that they mislead some into thinking that they can put a 50mm f/2.8 on a M43 and get comparable results to a 100mm f/2.8 on a full frame, just by changing distances and cropping.
Andrew Denis thanks!
I'm sorry for being late and possibly wrong, but: I don't think there is any "lost light" due to crop factor, you can test this by using the same lens on full frame and apsc at the same aperture, or your phone and a equivalent focal length lens on whatever DSLR (or whatever) if you only have one big camera. Just apply the crop factor to each aperture (nearly always expressed as 35mm equivalent) and keep the ISO the same for each camera, you'll find that the actual shutter speed is the same instead of the expected due to crop factor. I think the actual reason for poorer image quality in APSC is pixel size and greater interference between those pixels.
You are not wrong, and that is the basis for applying crop factor and related adjustments to get parity and other compensated effects. However, as far lost light, it depends on, first, what you mean specifically by "lost light" and second, whether you employ an aperture related speed booster or not. If you mean lost photons when you say lost light, then, unless you employ a speed booster you will not capture the same total number of photons with the smaller sensor-- all other things being equal (and by equal, I do not mean compensated for by crop factor or related adjustments, which are not always possible without artificial light sources or other physical/external means). With a speed booster of the right factor, all of those photons you would have gotten with the larger sensor would be captured with the smaller sensor, resulting in a higher effective photon density via the same total number of photons-- hence the "speed booster" effect. Without the booster, they are effective not captured at those settings-- and thereby "lost".
Often such considerations, such as the ones surrounding this video's assertions and viewers' pushback are due to the ambiguities of language. For example, FStoppers is not correct in asserting that sensor size does not have a relationship to depth of field. However, that is not what they meant or even explicitly said (it was strongly implied though, and supporting arguments bolstered that interpretation). If you can compensate for the size limitations of a given sensor by aperture, distance or other such compensation mechanism, then sensor size does not HAVE TO affect depth of field. However, since you cannot always compensate for that (otherwise nobody would ever need a DSLR, as you could shoot everything in all conditions with a cell phone); and as such, it is both commonly accepted and practically correct to assert that increased sensor size effects or allows for a shallower depth of field.
good point, but in not all scenarios you can be able to control the distance of the subject. i'm using both crop and fulframe but i want to do a shot with shallower depth of field, i always use my fullframe.
Skipped a couple of additional options to level the playing field. There are not only two options but 4. The two you forgot to mention and demonstrate were:
1. Shoot with a wider iris on the smaller sensor, and or:
2. Use a Speedbooster (focal reducer), which adjusts both the field of view and the exposure (as per the previous point) and can help close the optical gap between a smaller sensor and a bigger one.
Finally!!! Thank you very much, guys, this makes so much sense now!
Semantics. Most people imply "at the same f-ratio" or "with equivalent framing" within their discussion. Context is king.
The size of a sensor is absolutely a key factor in determining the Depth of Field in a photo. The simple reason is that Depth of Field is determined by the triangulation of the subject plane of focus (distance/height etc), aperture, and the size (height/width) of the captured image (film/sensor) on the camera plane.
Yes, you can achieve the same Depth of Field on any sized sensor as that of another, but not without changing other factors - distance to subject, focal length, aperture etc. This can be a problem when trying to get a shallow Depth of Field with a small-sized sensor and there are space constraints. I've seen this issue many times with 4/3 shooters trying to back up into a tight space to take a portrait.
So you are saying for two cameras with differing sensor sizes and lenses of the same focal length the depth of field will be the same, but the field of view will differ. Whereas for the same two cameras with lenses of equivalent focal lengths, the camera with the larger sensor will have the shallower depth of field. In other words, yes the larger sensor does produce a shallower depth of field (when comparing lenses of equivalent focal lengths).
Duncan Moakes It's the lens, not the sensor.
"lenses of equivalent focal lengths" is a really bad way of saying "Two different lenses"
Two different lenses will create two different depths of field.
1 lens will have the same depth of field regardless of what is placed behind it.
Hallelujah, you got it spot on the money, I wish everyone would watch your video !
Can believe that people are still complaining about the video. It was amazing! Thanks!
This guy actually nailed it. If you shoot cropped and want a really soft background, just go for the longer zoom. Sensor compression only applies on sensors when there's more pixels per area (pixel density). 22mp on a crop sensor use smaller photosites than 22mp on a full frame one.
I am big fan of your channel but in this video, I am surprised to see you didn't even talk about aperture equivalence. When you use different sensor size you must consider the following,
1. Aperture equivalence and Circle of Confusion to be considered for DOF calculation when you talk about different crop cameras. In your case D850 Aperture value to be 2 times the aperture you set on GH5. Assume you use 200mm lens on both D850 and GH5. Without changing the distance if you shoot, DOF produced by GH5 at f/2.8 is equivalent to f/5.6 ( 2 Stops ) produced by D850.
2. Background Blur is always associated to DOF which can't be ignored especially when you look for shallow DOF. Background Blur is calculated based on the physical size aperture opening. Assume you use 100mm lens with f/2.0 on both D850 and GH5. D850 will have more background blur because 100/2=50mm > 100/(2.0x2) = 25mm (I multiplied f/2.0 with 2 which Aperture equivalence for GH5)
Bc aperture equivalence is misleading crap and everyone is tired of hearing about it. Aperture is the physical diameter of the opening of the lens diaphragm, nothing more. F/stops are the relation of the physical measurement of that opening to the focal length of the lens. Neither of those change based on the size of the sensor you put behind it.
“Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter - Jordan Steele
admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/
circle of confusion does, though.
prasad palaniyandi
WRONG
Jeremy, focal length has to change to match angle of view. M43 needs 50mm lens to match angle of view of a 100mm FF lens. And 50mm f/1.8 will have two times smaller entrance pupil diameter than a 100mm f/1.8 lens. To compensate, for any given angle of view, M43 needs f/0.9 lens to match f/1.8 FF lens.
Best explanation I have heard on this controversial and often misunderstood subject.
Except it's wrong.
@@LunarLightLtd1 You believe FF produces shallower DoF? Just curious on your arguments as to why. I still suspect that at a practical level, FF does produce a bit more shallow DoF.
@@barrycohen311 There are only two things that affect depth of field directly: focus distance and aperture. A full frame camera will force you to either get closer (shortening focus distance) or zoom in (increasing aperture diameter at the same f-stop) to achieve a similar composition as a smaller sensor camera. So, yes, a full frame sensor INDIRECTLY affects depth of field. This isn't heresay or speculation, this is optics and math.
@@LunarLightLtd1 Fair enough. There is a lot to consider with this subject.
@@barrycohen311 check out this video, it'll change your mind. If not, there's no hope. th-cam.com/video/1bzHn2cKwLI/w-d-xo.html
This is easy to prove correct, just take a full frame lens and slap on speedbooster on crop sensor like M43, you get same depth of field you would on full frame, the problem is that crop sensor cameras usually have smaller sensors to have smaller lenses, who in their right mind would buy one inch camera with a freaking lens thats same weight and size from a FF? Not many.
Depth of field is governed by:
Majorly:
- Focal length (larger focal length = less depth of field)
- Distance to subject in focus (the farther away the subject in focus is, the more depth of field)
- Aperture (the more open the aperture ring is, the more light you will get and the more shallow your depth of field will be)
That's it. If you own a 35 mm camera you can take a step further to your subject in focus and keep it in your frame (your field of view is just larger compared to a APS-C camera when using the same lens) and this gives you the capability to receive a shallower depth of field. Assuming you keep your distance constant, 35 mm and APS-C (or even MFT and smaller sensor cameras) give you the exact same DoF, except that your field of view becomes less the smaller the sensor of your camera is - using the same lens. Your smaller Sensor just "cuts out" a smaller portion of the available image circle created by your lens.
Minor impact:
- The size of the pixels of your camera's sensor. The smaller the pixel size becomes, the shallower the depth of field will be:
Assume you have a blurred spot of light in the 'out of focus' background of an image that is focussed by a lens into the sensor plane.
If that blurred spot of light hits on a sensor with very large pixels, the diameter of the blurred circle may not exceed the surface area of the large pixel and thus doesn't appear blurred in the final photo created with such a sensor.
Again, if you have a different sensor with much smaller pixels and take a look at the very same scene with the same lens, the same blurred spot of light would exceed the surface area of one single pixel, may be even that of multiple pixels. Thus, if you zoom into the finale picture, the same blurred spot of light appears not sharp with the sensor that features smaller pixels but is sharp in the image created by the sensor with much larger pixels.
Higher pixel density doesn't haven't anything to do with depth of field.
100mm on FF is 100mm in FF. F2.8 on FF is f2.8 on FF. 100mm FF on m43 is 200mm.
Here is actually what is happening. Excuse the T approximation for exemplification.
F2.8 on FF and m43 isn't the same in terms of DOF. If you're using a FF lens in an m43 body You are using the center of the lens, so because you've changed you DOF you are now using a FF 100mm f2.8 as a 200mm f5.6 on m43, but only in terms of DOF. You assumed t stop value is still f2.8 in terms of the amount of light the lens is capable of allowing in.
In other words, your t stop value stats static but you DOF aperture value changes accordingly.
This has absolutely nothing whatsoever AT ALL with pixel density. That is absolute nonsense.
Accurately put, if for example you were using an apsc sensor that had 24mp, you would have a 36mp equivalent sensor on FF based solely on resolution and ppi. But again this depends on the sensor. Sensors has different pixel pitch within their own sensor format size. They would behave accordingly. In other words you would have higher resolution cropping an image with higher pixel density than without, that is a no brainer. But that has nothing to do with DOF.
This video has a lot of misinformation from a professional manufacturing POV.
Quite simply put, you can't compare sensors this way. Shooting at f2 on a FF sensor will always have a shallower DOF on a targeted object than shooting at f2 on an apsc or m43, simply because of crop factor. Yoire using lens compression and none optimized lens examples to make a confusing case that is just not scientifically accurate. You're also excluding t stop valuation.
A video like this, while enjoyable debate for professionals, is actually not a helpful video for amateurs or beginners to come across because it gives them misleading information that they can't disseminate, let alone grasp.
Distortion from compression isn't bokeh.
An accurate comparison would have been something like 50mm FF at f2 would have almost the same DOF as 35mm apsc at f1.4.
Then too would have to address ISO for exposure, or shutter speed.
Final question: 50:2 FF vs 35:1.4 APSC, seems like they have same sizes of aperture(25mm in diameter), so does this mean same amount of photons will hit each pixel in theory(ingore lens quality) if these two bodies have same MP count?
They aren't wrong. The sensor size has no effect on your Depth of Field as it is a physical property of the lens. The idea that a 100mm f2.8 becomes a 200mm f5.6 on a MFT is factually wrong. It remains a 100mm f2.8 except you are closer. So you back it up to a 200mm focal range distance to get a similar image. However, the aperture is still 2.8 the only thing that has changed is the distance. This will give the look of the 5.6 except it isn't. It is just as bright, and unsharp as the f2.8.
It's not overly confusing for beginners and is important information for them to have. The DOF is entirely a lens related effect. NOT a sensor based effect. Understanding this and understanding how one creates a shallow depth of field is important for all photographers to understand. Knowing this, you will be able to create shallow depth of field on a MFT camera, for some reason, people seem to believe that is impossible, and you will be able to create deep depth of field on a large sensor camera.
7:12 Answer is there, just Multiply the Aperture BY 2 on the D850, and problem is solved.
yep, applying crop factor to both focal length and apperture! a small miss.
Same focal length, distance, and F-stop = same DOF regardless of sensor size. That being said, a different sensor size will make for a different FOV and when we take photos, we frame our subject based on our FOV. If you shoot at 50mm/f2 on a FF you will obviously not get the same DOF as 25mm/f2 on an M43. If you use a 50mm at f2 on a M43 camera and back up, your perspective changes and makes for a different composition. In order to get an equivalent DOF on an M43 as a FF sensor, you'd have to shoot at F1. Sensor size doesn't effect your DOF, but in practice, a larger sensor camera does make it easier to achieve shallower DOF at your preferred focal length and perspective. Knowing exactly how DOF works and what actually effects DOF is important to learn as it will help in choosing what lens to buy/use and aid one in achieving a desired effect. Many upgrade to a FF camera with a 24-105 f4 kit lens and not achieve a shallower DOF than their APS-C camera with a 50mm f1.8.
Ultimately you want to get the same result from both sensors and that means changing distance is not an option. Changing the distance and matching the framing changes your FOV meaning that the amount of background in your images and the freature compression of your subject won't be the same.
In the shot with the two cameras at the same distance have a difference in DOF not because the focal length is different but because the aperture of the two lenses are physically not the same. With the 50mm F/2.8 (50 / 2.8 = 18mm aperture diameter) on the 4/3rds and a 100mm F/5.6 (100 / 5.6 = 18mm aperture diameter) on the full frame the aperture diameter of the two lenses will be the same, they will be size and weight. They will both produce an image with the same DOF, FOV, framing and the same pint of background which is what you want. If you add 0.5x focal reducer to the 100mm F/5.6 full frame lens it becomes a 50mm F/2.8 with 4/3rds image circle.
WRONG: you said at 2:08 "smaller sensors produce a shallower DOF cause they have a HIGHER pixel density (you mean pitch)"....... not the case at all, D500 and D850 (DX and FX) for example, have the same pixel pitch, NOR does pixel pitch have any effect of DOF.
the correct factor to explain would have been circle of confusion. then the statement happens to be accurate.
Theoria Apophasis it does have an affect depending on the print size and viewing distance. The depth of field “standard” scale for photography would make all smaller sensors produce a shallower depth of field but I was trying to explain why this is happening rather just stating a fact.
Yes, he failed! Well, all he actually failed at was to add, “...with the same number of eyeballs...” Smaller pixel pitch, aka higher density in the inverse, (more pixels per mm), means that the “circle of confusion” will cover more pixels on a smaller sensor than on a larger sensor with the same total pixel count, since the physical size of the circle will remain constant with focal length, focus distance and distance to subject being the same - which will indeed make the circle of confusion occupy more real estate in the frame of the smaller sensor.
Pitch is density
Fstoppers D500 has 20mp on APSC, D850 has 40+mp on full frame. Similar densities. Please compare a 20mp APSC vs 20mp M43 vs 20mp FF
While scientifically speaking, the sensor does not impact depth of field since the lens spits out the same image behind it regardless of what is behind it. But practically speaking, the larger the sensor is, the easier it is to get bokeh. For example When you see a full body portrait with a completely blurred background (that is a natural lens blur. What would it take to get that same effect on a camera with a 1/2.3 inch sensor? Most of the common terms used, are not based on the pure physics of the light, lens and sensor, instead is it based on the end result and what is practical. What is sought after is getting a specific depth of field while getting a specific framing. It is all about being able to quickly communicate what equipment you want and what end result you want.
scientifically speaking, depth of field isn't just what the lens puts out. theoretically, there is precisely one distance exactly in focus, and it is infinitely thin. ignoring format, the depth of field for any lens is *zero*. you have to factor circle of confusion into to get a range of acceptable focus that appears sharp in your final print, because circle of confusion is the largest size an out of focus circle can be while still appearing as a point. circle of confusion relies on enlargement and viewing acuity/distance. for a given print size, the larger sensor will be enlarged less, so it has a larger circle of confusion. that means things can be further off that precise point of focus while still appearing acceptably sharp.
that means that for a given lens, aperture, and distance, the larger format will have *more* depth of field. not less.
it's just that to get the same angle of view, the photographer with a larger sensor will use a longer lens, which will have a larger physical aperture for a given f/stop...
I was stating it more from the perspective of if you were to take a lens and hold it in front of a piece of paper, you will see a circular image projected on the paper. Since a lens is passive, making that paper larger or smaller, will not change the image circle. When you use a smaller sensor, you are effectively physically cropping that image circle. Because of this, if you keep the lens at the same exact position and only swap the body, you will get a more smaller FOV, but the depth of field will be exactly the same. The change in DOF comes from when you adjust your framing (mainly be moving back a bit when you go to a crop sensor, or move to a wider lens.
Arachnophilia, spot on!
Razor2048 on a crop sensor, you're also enlarging more for a given reproduction size. that happens to matter.
trying to talk about DOF without COC is a bit odd, since COC is the thing that defines what's in focus. COC changes with format size.
That was simple. Things are more interesting when you try to calculate, how much money you'll need to achieve your preferred DOF, FOV and working distances with different sensor sizes.
Theoretically you are right, its not the sensor size that is actually causing the depth of field difference. But in practice, given the same lens two photographers shooting the same scene one with GH5 and the other with D850 will end up with different pictures. in conclusion larger sensor is not producing shallower DOF but instead enables it.
When you crop the image of the full-frame camera (6:31), you actually get the smaller sensor size, and that's why DOF is the same. If you made the same image, you could prove that larger sensors DO produce shallower DOF.
Longer lenses have shallower DoF because the physical aperture size generally gets larger as you zoom, not because they have a longer focal length.
Bepl h no. longer focal length don't *generally* have larger aperture.
Try the kit lens: 18mm / 3.5 = 5.1mm aperture growing to 55mm / 5.6 = 9.8mm aperture
Bepl h you don't divide focal length with aperture f-stop
How else do you work out the physical aperture size?
Bepl h f-stop *is* physical aperture size. t-stop is how much light coming into your sensor.
I imagine that is why they titled the video with ''produce". It has no direct effect, but it indirectly affects the depth of field.
@Richard P Using your great analogy, the video considers whether Jim Bob being there and not peeing in pot at all. Empty bladder you could guess! Being there or replaced by Zoe Jane or Blank Barnie doing the same thing (nothing) then net piss in pot would remain the same.
Seeking to understand the point being made in the video and if sensor contributes or not. i.e. if no other variables changed, but the sensor, would DoF change. The video suggests: No!
Have a great snowy day.
I think the unarguable definitive take away regardless of why, for the exact same composition a smaller sensor has less depth of field
This is the first video that shows why people arguing all day both ways. So it's not the sensor that causes it but the sensor forces you to take the same composition differently that does cause it so therefore the sensor is actually causing it even though it's really not. It's so clear now
I genuinely found this very interesting! I’ve always believed that full frame or even medium format cameras produced shallower DOF, though as explained in the video, it’s actually the choice of lens producing the DOF, as the crop factor alters with the different sensor sizes. Great work!
When you use DOF you can fall into a trap of confusion? What about Depth of Focus, DOF? They are NOT the same!
Thanks I'll get rid of my FF and use my phone from now until I can find an even smaller sensor. 😀
It's the size of the entrance pupil that determines the amount of blur. Actually the size of the fuzzy area you see in a foto is precisely the same size of the 'light cone' from the lens at that distance. Say you have a pupil that's 35mm wide and the lens is focussed at infinity then any object at any distance will have a blurr of 35mm width. If the lens is focussed at 1m then at 100m distance the size of the blurr will be 3500mm or 3.5m. (actually 99x - 3465mm)
Things like longer focal length or smaller sensor is just like zooming in afterwards, It will make the blurr appear larger on the photo.
Larger sensors produce more blurr because when you scale the whole optical system up then the front hole or entrance pupil becomes larger. Offcourse you can create an 'exception', but that's like comparing apples to oranges.
Finally a youtube video that says exactly my point. You can get shallow depth of field from a smartphone too but it should be really really close. If you focus an object at 400metres away from you on a full frame camera with 1.4 aperture on 25mm lense it will not have shallow depth of field.
Id say if you want shallow depth of field with very very tight shot go for m43 . If you want shallow depth of field with wider shot go for full frame.
Or get a m43 with a speedbooster 🤪
Yes, if you create a 1/6 scale model and photograph it with a smart phone you get similar depth of field if you shot the real thing with a full frame camera.
Well yeah, but the real question people want to ask but can't fully though due to technical ignorance is this: Which camera produces the shallowest DOF with the same composition. And the answer is larger sensors. Yes it's not only cause the sensor is larger it's also because your field of view is larger so you have to move in closer for the same portrait composition and that's whats making full frame sensors produce shallower DOF. A micro four thirds camera would have to close in for a shoulder portrait while a full frame will have the same background blurriness with a full size portrait. So yes, a larger sensor is the reason shallower DOF is produced. And that's what people really want to know when choosing cameras. So yes technically you're right, but only a handfull of people would agree with you as that's not the question most people want to know the answer to.. They wanna know which camera blurs the background more. And that's it. Larger sensors with huge telephoto lenses and wide appertures blur the background more. End of debate here... Wanna know why? watch this video
P.S
a funny test i made using my 55-250 f3.5-5.6 and my 50mm f1.8 on a Canon 450d. If you compose for a certain portrait with the 50mm at f1.8 to get shallow depth of field and then move back and use the 55-250 at 250mm f5.6, you will get a shallower DOF with the same composition than the 50mm f1.8 !!! So 250mm f5.6 > 50mm f1.8 for blurry backgrounds if you can move back enough that is. It can work for outdoor shots only though. I'm tired of youtubers proposing the nifty fifty over telephoto zoom lenses for blurry backgrounds. If you own any cheap long zoom telephoto lense you can have more bokeh than a 50mm f1.4 at 200mm or 250mm 300mm f5.6 f6.3 etc. The cost is usability of course due to narrow field of view when using longer telephoto lenses. Can't always move back enough to get the same composition as wider lenses like the 50mm or 35mm do.
Good point - those zooms are capable of taking nice portraits - I won't hesitate to use my Nikon 55-200 at the long end in a pinch. I've found it to be a great banger lens for OCR photography. I would guess however that the reason the 50mm gets all the love is the 50mm is more versatile since it can be used in low light (indoors and out) at lower iso and in more cramped situations (i.e. indoors in poor light/window light/etc.) In my experience I also enjoy the rendering better from the 50 at f2 or so than the 55-200 at 5.6. I do agree those cheaper zooms are underrated.
Bill Whitworth i found the 50mm renders the creamiest bokeh at f2.8. For the Canon lens that is, so i agree. But so many people own a long cheap zoom and only a few know the portrait capabilities these things have. Especialy if you can get the furthest possible background from the subject while maintaning a close distance with the camera to it. I currently use a pocket camera with just 1 inch sensor the panasonic tz100 and i can still get creamy bokeh in portraits from the waist up. Thats insane
So then Tony Northrup is wrong? NO! To have the exact same result, you shoot with a full frame 100mm f/2.8 and with a m4/3 50mm f/1.4
actually cropped sensor is more magical because of it's cropped. you only need half of a focal length to get in at the same distance.
Robert Bratu
Tony is not wrong but his explanations weren't the best. He basically wanted to figure out what needs to be changed on a MFT camera to get the exact same look as a FF camera. Which he more or less concluded with "half the focal length and half the aperture" and if you think about it, that's just a FF lens with a 2x speed booster on MFT.
Sam Santana Tony is right. The m43rds needs to be at 50 f1.4 to have the same dof and angle of view as a ff 100 f2.8.
Being at 50mm f2.8 would make is have mire dof than at f1.4
F stop value is a mathematical representation of aperture diameter and focal length. F2.8 on 50mm is much smaller diameter than f2.8 on 100mm.
dead wrong, EVERY lens dumps the same light out, REGARDLESS of the sensor under them,......DOF only changes when you change your distance for the same FOV
WRONG, Tony IS wrong. Every lens on earth dumps the XACT same light/image at the same distance with NO regard of the sensor size underneath.
a crop is just a crop and ONLY a crop
To try and sum it up as simply as possible: Larger sensors do not produce a shallower depth of field, but all things equal apart from sensor size (if you're using the same lens focal length, and creating the same framing on your subject) a bigger sensor allows you to get closer to your subject than you would with a cropped sensor, thereby allowing for a more shallow depth of field. Because the closer you are to your subject, the more capable your are of producing shallow depth of field shots.
I've watched several explanations of depth of field on YT and yours has been one of the best, especially on Circle of Confusion,, thanks for your post I look forward to seeing more of your videos..........
You are correct if only there would exist f1.4 m4/3 zoom lenses and f0.7 prime lenses.
Shallow depth of field is almost always bad.
The thing with most MFT lenses is you can shoot them wide open. Often not the case with ff lenses
All modern FF lenses perform or are expected to perform well wide open.
@@kiisseli1337 Often they need stopping down a little
Can’t wait to read these comments...
Bring on the hate
hahahahahaha! will be hot in here!
it is already a battlefield lmao
Fstoppers: "i'm gonna shoot at f/22 look how sharp everything is!"
Diffraction: "NOT ON MY WATCH"
This comparison was shot at broad daylight - ideal conditions for filming. This is not always the case. Also, there was not given ISO and exposure settings. I bet they were different between the shots. To make true compare all needs to be the same - ISO, exposure, F number, number of pixel in the sensor, and distance. Only sensor size changes.
So, all things being "equal".... the full frame gave you a shallower depth of field. WTH are you even doing ...
I think what he's saying is that you can get the same depth of field with an APS-C sensor compared to the full frame sensor. It's not the sensor but the distance to the subject and focall length. FOV changes based on sensor so you have to move with the FF to get the same FOV as the APS-C
eric00214 oh I got that, but what he eventually admitted is that due to practical and typical shooting distances, FF has the effect of giving a shallower depth of field, which is something he should have just stated in the beginning..
Thanks... this is a much better explanation than the one from Tony Northrup who keeps telling Camera manufacturers to change the specifications of the lens for APS-C cameras.
If you are shooting a subject the FF forces you to move closer for the same head shot making the DOF shallow with the same focal length equivalent.
At 7:17 be careful when explaining DOF because while it may seem that keeping your f-number the same on both lenses won't change the aperture, you actually are decreasing it when you change the focal length to 50mm on the GH5. Although the f-number is related to aperture, it is not aperture itself. F-number is simply the ratio of a lens's focal length to it's entrance pupil (known generally as the effective aperture) so by decreasing the focal length from 100mm to 50mm, you are also decreasing the entrance pupil in half (35.7mm to 17.9mm in this case) when the f-number stays constant at f/2.8. So by changing both the focal length and the effective aperture, the test in the video isn't quite accurate in describing how ONLY changing the focal length affects DOF.
Since the entrance pupil is the visual result of the combination of the physical aperture inside of the lens and the lens elements and not just the physical aperture, technically changing the physical aperture diameter itself is what changes DOF. However, when we are comparing lenses to different lenses (as in the test in this video) and/or testing DOF variables besides the entrance pupil, the entrance pupil should be used and held constant instead of the physical aperture to properly compare the DOF. This should be done because the entrance pupil acts as the effective aperture, hence the name.
To be clear though, focal length still does affect DOF, just not as much as shown at 7:17. Almost all of what is shown there is due to a difference in the aperture of the lens.
Overall though this video is one of the best on explaining DOF in general that I've seen in terms of ease of understanding. Well done!!!
Schrodinger's cat loves photons :)