Quote:
Originally Posted by vandergus
The reference you gave has been disputed by many and I think if you poll the general knowledge out there, you will find that the majority disagree with mister Reichmann. He even seems to contradict himself in places.
The mistake that he makes is assuming that DoF is concerned with how much detail is being resolved on the sensor/film. In that case, no, the size of the film/sensor doesn't matter. But that isn't consistent with the definition of DoF. DoF is concerned with the apparent sharpness in the final print, so magnification must be taken into account. It's not about resolution, it's about what appears to be sharp. Small films/sensors are magnified more than large sensors/film so the DoF is different.
I'm sorry, I don't know how to explain it any more than that. I think you'll just have to do a lot more reading on the subject, from multiple sources, and perhaps you'll come to a different conclusion.
|
I'm sorry but after reading the article, it does make clear that the depth of field in the final print does depend on the magnification ( but can be "compensated" by viewing distance). In fact one sentence states that if he expects to magnify greater than normal he sets his hyperfocal distance by reference to a wider aperture that that he is shooting,thus giving an expected smaller DOF.
So do not see what the disagreement is about.