نوشته شده در موضوع خرید اینترنتی در ۲۴ آبان ۱۳۹۵





Perspective is how objects seem in propinquity to other objects,
and a outcome it can have on a picture is dramatically demonstrated with

these images
.  Perspective is a function
customarily of the
widen of a camera from a theme — a customarily purpose a focal length
plays is in last that apportionment of a stage we are capturing, not
how a stage is rendered.  Technically, it is a
duty of a widen from a theme to a lens aperture, yet as
prolonged as we are not during macro, or nearby macro, distances, it is sufficient to
cruise of a viewpoint simply as a subject-camera widen given this
amounts to a disproportion of customarily a few inches.  Two photos taken from a same position will have
a same viewpoint regardless of a focal length or sensor size
regardless of a FL (focal length) of a lens used.

A good approach to cruise of viewpoint is to cruise two
objects, one 10 ft from a camera, a other 30 ft from a camera. 
If both objects are in a support with a theme being a closer object,
and we fire during 50mm from 10 ft away, afterwards a offer vigilant is three
times as distant divided as a subject.  If, however, we step behind another
۱۰ ft and support a theme in a same demeanour during 100mm, then, if a the
offer vigilant is even still in a frame, afterwards a theme will be 20 ft
divided and a other vigilant 40 ft divided — customarily twice as far. 
Conversely, if we get twice as tighten and support during 25mm, now a theme is
۵ ft away, and a other vigilant is 25 feet divided — 5 times as far.

Not customarily does a subject-camera widen change a viewpoint by
changing a relations distances of subjects within a frame, it also
changes, in a identical fashion, how widely distant they are in a frame. 
In fact, when we use a longer perspective, we will mostly find that many of
what was in a support of a closer viewpoint is now outward a frame
(the tree pics

are an glorious instance of this). 
Inasmuch as a scene as a whole matters, rather than simply the
tangible subject, viewpoint can be one of a many distinguished elements of a




For a given perspective, a framing can be suspicion of as
a whole of a prisoner scene, and is synonymous with a FOV (field of
view), that is a multiple of a craft and straight AOV (angle of
view).  Unless differently specified, a tenure “AOV” refers to
a diagonal AOV.  The eminence between AOV and FOV need
not be done when systems share a same aspect ratio, yet a incomparable the
disproportion in aspect ratios, a some-more vicious a eminence between
a terms.

In addition, it is vicious to note that a focal
length (and f-ratio) remarkable on a lens is for forever focus
(magnification, m, is equal to zero).  As a magnification increases (subject-camera widen decreases),
both a AOV and f-ratio will boost in a same proportion, that is
an generally vicious indicate for macro, and nearby macro,
photography, and discussed offer down.

We can discriminate a horizontal, vertical, and erratic AOVs
for forever concentration with a following

AOV = 2 · tan-1 [ s / [ (2
· FL) ]


AOV = angle of viewpoint (degrees)
s = sensor dimension (mm)

FL = focal length (mm)


For example, a diagonal, horizontal, and straight AOV for forever concentration (m=0)
on 35mm FF during 50mm is:

Diagonal AOV for 50mm on 35mm FF = 2 · tan-1 [43.3mm / (2 · ۵۰mm)] ~ 47°
Horizontal AOV for 50mm on 35mm FF = 2 · tan-1 [36mm / (2 · ۵۰mm)] ~ 40°
Vertical AOV for 50mm on 35mm FF = 2 · tan-1 [24mm / (2 · ۵۰mm)] ~

Solving a AOV regulation for focal length, we have:

FL = s / [ 2 · tan (AOV
/ ۲) ]

Let’s now discriminate a focal length for 35mm FF, 1.5x,
۱٫۶x, and 4/3 for a erratic AOV of 47° at
forever (m=0):

FL for FF = 43.3mm / [ 2 · tan (47°
/ ۲) ] ~ ۵۰mm
FL for 1.5x = 28.4mm / [ 2 · tan (47°
/ ۲) ] ~ ۳۳mm
FL for 1.6x = 26.7mm / [ 2 · tan (47°
/ ۲) ] ~ ۳۱mm

FL for 4/3 = 21.6mm / [ 2 · tan (47° /
۲) ] ~ ۲۵mm

Note that these focal lengths are all proportional to the
sensor ratio:

۵۰mm / 1.5 ~ 33mm
۵۰mm / 1.6 ~ 31mm
۵۰mm / 2 ~ 25mm

Now we’ll repeat for a craft AOV of 40°
during forever (m=0):

FL for FF = 36mm / [ 2 · tan (40°
/ ۲) ] ~ ۵۰mm
FL for 1.5x = 23.7mm / [ 2 · tan (40°
/ ۲) ] ~ ۳۳mm
FL for 1.6x = 22.2mm / [ 2 · tan (40°
/ ۲) ] ~ ۳۱mm

FL for 4/3 = 17.3mm / [ 2 · tan (40° /
۲) ] ~ ۲۴mm

Once again, we see these are proportional to a sensor

۵۰mm / 1.5 ~ 33mm
۵۰mm / 1.6 ~ 31mm
۵۰mm / 2.08 ~ 24mm

And for a straight AOV of 27°
during forever (m=0):

FL for FF = 24mm / [ 2 · tan (27°
/ ۲) ] ~ ۵۰mm
FL for 1.5x = 15.7mm / [ 2 · tan (27°
/ ۲) ] ~ ۳۳mm
FL for 1.6x = 14.8mm / [ 2 · tan (27°
/ ۲) ] ~ ۳۱mm

FL for 4/3 = 13mm / [ 2 · tan (27° /
۲) ] ~ ۲۷mm

And, again, these focal lengths are proportional to the
sensor ratio:

۵۰mm / 1.5 ~ 33mm
۵۰mm / 1.6 ~ 31mm
۵۰mm / 1.85 ~ 27mm


The effective focal length (EFL) of the
lens for a theme during a widen d (mm) from a orifice is given by:

 EFL = FL · (۱ + m
/ p)


m = picture magnification (ratio of a tallness of the
image on a sensor to a tallness of a tangible object)
p = pupil
magnification (the ratio of a hole of a exit student to the
diameter of a opening pupil)

Symmetric lenses have equal opening student and exit
pupil diameters.  Thus, p=1 for a symmetric lens and we can
disregard it.   Normal lenses tend to be closer to symmetric
designs, as a ubiquitous rule, longer lenses tend to have incomparable entrance
pupils than exit pupil, so p1 (progressively smaller a longer the
lens), and wider lenses (especially retrofocal) are a opposite, with

The following list demonstrates the
outcome of focal widen on a EFL of a symmetric 50mm lens (p=1):


EFL for a symmetric 50mm lens
۱ : ∞
m = 0
۱ : ۲۰
m = 0.05
۱ : ۱۰
m = 0.1
۱ : ۵
m = 0.2
۱ : ۳
m = 0.33
۱ : ۲
m = 0.5
۱ : ۱
m = 1

A useful attribute between focal length, sensor size,
theme to orifice distance, and a tallness or breadth of a focal craft in a imitation is:

EFL / d = s / (s + h)

where all variables next are given in mm (1m = 1000mm, 1
ft = 304.8mm)

EFL = effective focal length
s      = sensor dimension (sensor tallness for landscape orientation, sensor
length for mural march — given in a list customarily a bit further
d     = widen to subject

h     = tallness of frame

For low magnifications, the
formula reduces to:

FL / d ≈ s / h

For example, let’s contend we have a landscape oriented
imitation of a indication who is 5′ 8″ (1727mm) tall, takes adult 2/3 of the
frame from bottom to top, and wish to know what widen a indication was
from a camera if taken on
FF with an 85mm lens.  The calculation is as follows:

۸۵ / d =
۲۴ / (۱۷۲۷ / ⅔) → d = 9175mm =
۳۰ ft.


Listed next are tables of common
ERs (equivalence ratios — stand factor) in propinquity to 35mm FF for images
regulating a same AOV (see

for a some-more finish list).  When given in stops, a ER is dull to the
nearest 1/3 stop.  The reason that 35mm FF (24mm x 36mm) is chosen
as a customary is due to a recognition in a days of film and a fact
that there are some-more lenses done for this sold format that many of
a smaller sensor DSLRs also use, yet we can use any format as a
reference.  Due to conflicting aspect ratios,
when gathering to a measure of a some-more block sensor, we use the
ratio of a shorter measure of a sensor to discriminate a ER, and when
gathering to a measure of a some-more elongated sensor, we use a ratio
of a longer sensor dimensions.  In a box of 3:2 being cropped to
۴:۳, or vice-versa, this will outcome in reduction than a 1/3 stop difference.

One side outcome of gathering 3:2 images to 4:3 is that it greatly
mitigates any density that competence uncover in a impassioned corners. 
However, we contingency also comprehend that this comes during a responsibility of removing
۱/۹ of a pixels from a image.  But as 3:2 systems generally have
some-more pixels than 4:3 systems of a same generation, this can be done
yet any fact chastisement when comparing systems.  Realistically,
however, a impassioned corners make adult so tiny of a image, and are so
tighten between systems anyway during a same DOF that it is customarily a
caring for a many hardcore of “pixel-peepers”. 
Please see this image
as an instance of what would be called a “huge” disproportion in the
corners of conflicting systems during a same DOF.  we simply see it as a
non-issue, generally deliberation that a differences elsewhere in the
support matter some-more by far, yet others see it as a vicious disadvantage. 
In any event, framing somewhat wider and gathering to 4:3 will basically
discharge even that impassioned case.

Compacts / Cell Phones:















۳٫۴۲ x




→ ۶


۴٫۰۴ x





۵ ۱/۳


۴٫۲۹ x





۵ ۱/۳


۴٫۶۰ x 6.13






۵٫۳۲ x





۴ ۱/۲


۵٫۷ x





۴ ۱/۳


۶٫۶ x






۱″ (Sony RX100)

۸٫۸ x 13.2




۲٫۸۹ → ۳

DSLRs / mirrorless:














CX (Nikon 1)

۸٫۸ x 13.2






۴/۳ (Olympus, Panasonic)

۱۳٫۰ x 17.3





APS-C (Sigma)

۱۳٫۸ x 20.7





۱ ۲/۳

APS-C (Canon)

۱۴٫۹ x 22.






۱ ۱/۳

(Sony, Nikon, K-M, Pentax, Fuji)

۱۵٫۷ x 23.7






۱ ۱/۳

APS-H (Canon 1D series)

۱۹٫۱ x






۳۵mm FF (Canon 1Ds series, 5D; Nikon
D3, D700)

۲۴ x 36





Leica S2

۳۰ x 45






Pentax 645

۳۳ x 44






MF (Mamiya

۳۶ x






Rather than describe to an capricious standard, such as 35mm
FF, a ER between any dual systems regulating a lengths of their respective
or, some-more simply, possibly order a ERs of a sold systems, or
subtract their sensor ratios when regulating stops, regulating a values in a list above.  For example, the
SR between a Canon 40D and Olympus E3 can be computed
(for a same AOV) as 2.00 / 1.62 ~ 1.23 (2/3 of a stop to the
nearest 1/3 stop, or, some-more simply:  ۲ stops – 1 1/3 stops = 2/3 of a
stop).  Thus, 25mm f/2 ISO 100 on 4/3 would have a same AOV, DOF,
and shiver speed as 31mm f/ 2.5 ISO 160 on 1.6x, given 25mm x 1.23 ~
۳۱mm, f/2 x 1.23 ~ f/2.5, and ISO 100 x 1.23² ~ ISO 160 (or, alternatively, f/2 + 2/3 stops = f/2.5 and ISO 100 +
۲/۳ stops = ISO 160).


DOF / Diffraction / Total Amount of Light on a Sensor

The DOF, diffraction, and sum volume of light projected on a sensor
are all closely associated to the

aperture diameter
.  This territory will start by deliberating DOF,
followed by a contention on

.  The contention on a sum volume of light
projected on a sensor is a conflicting section,

Exposure, Brightness, and Total Light

The DOF (depth of field) is a widen between a nearby and distant points from a focal craft that appear to be in vicious concentration and is a executive actor in a volume of fact rendered in an image. It is also vicious not to upset DOF with credentials blur
(which is discussed offer down).  Photos with:

• a same
perspective (subject-camera distance)

the same
• a same
aperture diameter
• a same

• a same observation distance
• noticed with a same visual

will have a same DOF (and

).  Alternatively, photos with:

• a same


(subject-camera distance)
• equivalent

focal lengths

• equivalent

relative apertures

• regulating the
equivalent CoC

will also have a same DOF (and


Note that neither
series of pixels nor a widen of a pixels figure into a CoC during all, solely inasmuch as a size
we arrangement a imitation depends on a widen and/or series of pixels that make adult a photo, such as when observation 100%
crops on a mechanism monitor.  The arithmetic demonstrating a equivalencies is worked out a bit
offer down — do try to enclose your excitement! ; )

Moving right along, customarily an infinitesimally tiny apportionment of a picture is indeed in
concentration (the focal plane), yet as a eyes and mind can't see with
gigantic precision, a focal craft is noticed to have some depth. As we boost a image, we
can some-more clearly see that reduction and reduction of a picture is within focus, and
this is how a DOF changes with enlargement.

Of course, no lens is perfect, so a focal craft is not a craft during all,
yet rather a surface.  In some instances, a camber of a focal
craft (field curvature) can be impassioned adequate that what appears to be edge
density is indeed a prosaic aspect descending outward a focal “plane”. 
In addition, a concentration falloff is light — a closer elements in the
stage are to a focal surface, a crook they will appear.  The
DOF is a abyss from an ideal focal craft in that we cruise elements
of a stage to be “sharp enough”.

The series of pixels, or sharpness of a lens, on the
other hand, have zero to do with DOF.  These are independent
factors in a sharpness of a imitation — a low fortitude image
displayed with vast measure does not indispensably have low DOF — the
blur is a outcome of a revoke resolution.  The disproportion between
the fuzz due to singular DOF and a fuzz due to other factors (soft
lens, low pixel count, camera shake, diffraction, etc.) is that these
other sources of fuzz impact a whole imitation equally, given a blur
associated with shoal DOF will be incomparable for a portions of the
scene offer from a focal plane.  Blur do to motion, of course,
will selectively impact objects that have a biggest relations motion
in a support (that is, a delayed relocating vigilant tighten to a camera competence have
greater fuzz than a quick relocating vigilant distant from a camera).

Most, if not all,
online DOF calculators (as good as DOF tables) are formed on “standard
viewing conditions” of an 8×10 in. imitation (or any imitation displayed with
a 12.8 in. — 325mm — diagonal) noticed from a widen of 10 inches with 20-20
vision.  Change any of those parameters (and greatfully note that the
pixel widen is not one of a parameters), and you’ll change a DOF
(although, for example, if we double both a arrangement measure and the
observation distance, these dual effects will cancel any other out), and these
parameters are accounted for with the
CoC (circle of confusion) in the
DOF formula(s).

Let’s discriminate a CoC for a “standard observation conditions” with FF, APS-C, and mFT (4/3):

• Viewing widen = 10 in x 2.54 cm / in = 25 cm
• Final picture fortitude for 20-20 prophesy with a observation widen of 10 in (25 cm) = 5 lp / mm
• Enlargement:  ۳۲۵ mm / 43.3 mm = 7.5 for FF, 325 mm / 28.4 mm = 11.4 for 1.5x, 325 mm / 26.8 mm = 12.1 for 1.6x, and 325 mm / 21.6 mm = 15 for mFT (4/3)

Plugging into a CoC Formula, CoC (mm) = observation widen (cm) / preferred final-image fortitude (lp/mm) for a 25 cm observation widen / boost / 25, we get:

• CoC (FF)             
= (۲۵ cm) / (5 lp / mm) /  ۷٫۵  / ۲۵ = ۰٫۰۲۷ mm (DOFMaster
uses 0.030 mm)
• CoC (1.5x)           
= (۲۵ cm) / (5 lp / mm) / 11.4 / 25 = 0.018 mm (DOFMaster
uses 0.020 mm)
• CoC (1.6x)           
= (۲۵ cm) / (5 lp / mm) / 12.1 / 25 = 0.017 mm (DOFMaster
uses 0.019 mm)
• CoC (mFT — 4/3)  = (۲۵ cm) / (5 lp / mm) /  ۱۵  
/ ۲۵ = ۰٫۰۱۳ mm (DOFMaster
uses 0.015 mm)

Let’s discriminate one some-more instance for a CoC regulating a 20×30 in. photo
viewed from 2 ft divided with 20-20 prophesy taken with a FF camera (24mm x
۳۶mm sensor):

• Viewing widen = 2 ft x 12 in / ft x 2.54 cm / in = 61 cm
• Final picture fortitude for 20-20 prophesy = 5 lp / mm
• Enlargement = (30 in x 25.4 mm / in) / 36 mm = 21.2

Plugging into a CoC Formula, CoC (mm) = observation widen (cm) / preferred final-image resolution
(lp/mm) for a 25 cm observation widen / boost / 25, we get CoC = (61 cm) / (5 lp / mm) / (21.2) / 25 = 0.023 mm, that is what we
would expect, given observation a 20×30 in. imitation during 2 ft is homogeneous to
viewing a 8.3×12.5 in. imitation during 10 inches (very tighten to “standard observation conditions”). 

This online calculator
  allows we name a CoC; however, for
comparative functions conflicting formats, a CoC will scale by the
equivalence ratio (crop factor).

On a other hand, a DOF formulas do not embody how
closely we scrutinize a photo.  In other words, dual photos
competence have a same DOF per a mathematical formulas, yet if we
investigate one imitation some-more closely than another (perhaps it is more
interesting, for example), afterwards a DOFs competence seem different:

Scrutinizing one picture some-more critically than another has
a same outcome as looking during that picture with a aloft manifest acuity than
a another.

However, for dual photos of a same stage displayed during a same widen and
noticed from a same widen that have a same computed DOF, then
whatever a biased clarity of a DOF is for one photo, it will be a same for
a other imitation (although, as discussed above, it’s easy to upset “blurry” with “less DOF”).

As a DOF deepens, some-more of a picture is rendered sharply, both because
some-more of a picture is within a DOF, and given a aberrations of the
lens lessens as a orifice gets smaller — adult to a point. 
Depending on a sensor pixel widen and arrangement widen of an image, a effects of diffraction
will start to revoke a sharpness of a picture some-more than a deeper DOF
and obtuse aberrations boost a sharpness.  However, a indicate diffraction
softening outweighs a deeper DOF and obtuse aberrations depends
on a stage and a lens sharpness.  It is common to read
about “diffraction singular apertures”, yet these are formed on a “perfect”
lens and images where a whole of a stage lies within a DOF.  In
other words, it is utterly common to grasp a crook and some-more detailed
picture that is past a “diffraction limited” orifice due to the
deeper DOF including some-more of a scene.

At a conflicting finish of a DOF spectrum, shoal DOFs
offer to besiege a theme from a background.  However, while a
some-more shoal DOF does lead to a incomparable credentials blur, it is not the
only, or, in many instances, even a vital actor in a apportion of
credentials blur, many in a same approach that many upset a
bokeh (the quality of the
out-of-focus areas of an image) with a quantity of a blur. 
For example, if a theme is 10 ft from a camera, 50mm f/2 will have the
same framing and DOF on a same format as 100mm f/2 for a theme 20 ft
away.  That is, a same widen from a focal craft will be
deliberate to be in vicious focus.  But a inlet of a background
fuzz will be really conflicting — a longer focal length will boost the
credentials blur.

In fact, we can be some-more specific.  The volume of credentials blur
(assuming a credentials is good outward a DOF) is proportional to the
ratio of a orifice diameters.  For example, while a DOF for 50mm
f/2 and 100mm f/2 will be a same for a same framing (in most
circumstances), a credentials fuzz will be double for 100mm f/2 given the
orifice hole is twice as vast for 100mm f/2 than for 50mm f/2 (100mm
/ ۲ = ۵۰mm, 50mm / 2 = 25mm).  A good educational on this can be found


We can now make a following generalizations about a DOF
of images on conflicting formats for non-macro situations (when a theme widen is “large” compared to
a focal length), gripping in mind that orifice hole = focal length / f-ratio, and assuming
that all images are noticed from a same widen with a same manifest acuity:



  • For a same perspective, framing,

    relative aperture
    , and arrangement size, incomparable sensor systems will furnish a some-more shoal DOF than smaller sensors
    in suit to a ratio of a sensor sizes.

  • For a same perspective, framing,
    aperture diameter, and arrangement size, all systems have a same DOF.

  • If both formats use a same focal length and relations orifice (and so also
    a same orifice diameter), yet a incomparable sensor complement gets closer so
    that a theme occupies a same area of a frame, and a photos are
    displayed during a same dimensions, afterwards a incomparable sensor complement will have
    a some-more shoal DOF in suit to ratio of a sensor sizes.

  • For a same viewpoint and focal length, incomparable sensor systems will
    have a wider framing.  If a same

    relative aperture

    is used, afterwards both
    systems will also have a same orifice diameter.  As a result, if
    the imitation from a incomparable sensor complement is displayed during a incomparable widen in
    proportion to ratio of a sensor sizes, or a imitation from a incomparable sensor system
    is cropped to a same framing as a picture from a smaller sensor system
    and displayed during a same size, afterwards a dual photos will have a same


Let’s give examples for any unfolding regulating mFT (4/3), 1.6x, and FF
(forgive me for withdrawal out 1.5x, as it is so tighten to 1.6x as to be all
but surplus to use for a purpose of examples, as we am repeating the
process several times).  As remarkable earlier, a condition of “same
display size” customarily requires a same erratic length, rather than the
same length and width.  This eminence is nonessential when the
systems have a same aspect ratio, yet can infrequently be a means when
the aspect ratios are not a same (for example, if we arrangement a photo
with a 15 in. diagonal, afterwards a 4:3 imitation would be 9 x 12 inches and a
۳:۲ imitation would be 8.3 x 12.5 inches).  In all cases, we assume a same observation distance
and manifest acuity:


  • Let’s contend we are holding a imitation of a theme 10 ft away, and use 40mm f/2.8
    on mFT (4/3), 50mm f/2.8 on 1.6x, and 80mm f/2.8 on FF.  All will have the
    same perspective, given a subject-camera widen is a same, and all
    will have a same AOV, given 40mm x 2 = 50mm x 1.6 = 80mm.  Since
    all are regulating f/2.8, afterwards if we arrangement a photos during a same size, FF
    will have a slightest DOF, 1.6x will have 1.6x some-more DOF than FF, and mFT (4/3)
    will have a twice a DOF of FF (1.25x some-more DOF than 1.6x).

  • Again, let’s contend we are holding a imitation of a theme 10 ft away, yet this
    time use 40mm f/4 on mFT (4/3), 50mm f/5 on 1.6x, and 80mm f/8 on FF.  Once
    again, all will have a same viewpoint given a subject-camera
    distances are a same, and all will have a same AOV given 40mm x 2 =
    ۵۰mm x 1.6 = 80mm.  The orifice diameters will also be a same
    given 40mm / 4 = 50mm / 5 = 80mm / 8 = 10mm.  In this case, all
    photos will have a same DOF when displayed during a same dimensions.

  • This time, let’s fire a theme from 20 ft during 40mm f/4 on mFT (4/3), 16 ft at
    ۴۰mm f/4 on 1.6x, and 10 ft during 40mm f/4 on FF.  While the
    perspectives are conflicting (since a subject-camera distances are not the
    same), a AOVs are a same given 20 ft / 2 = 16 ft / 1.6 = 10 ft, yet FF
    will have a many shoal DOF, 1.6x will have a DOF 1.6x deeper, and mFT
    will double a DOF.

  • We now fire a same theme from 10 ft divided with all formats, yet this
    time use a same focal length and same f-ratio as good (for example, 50mm
    f/2.8).  If we arrangement a mFT (4/3) imitation with a 12 inch
    diagonal, a 1.6x imitation with a 15 in. diagonal, and
    a FF imitation with a 24 in. diagonal, and viewpoint a images
    from a same distance, afterwards all will have a same DOF.  Note how
    a diagonals conform to a focal multipliers of a respective
    systems:  ۱۲ in x 2 = 15 in x 1.6 = 24 in, that means that if we
    cropped a photos to a same framing, they would all be a same


Let’s now denote a DOF equilibrium mathematically.  As stated
earlier, a DOF is a widen from a focal craft where objects in
this territory are deliberate to be critically sharp.  However, the
widen from a focal craft is not always an even split.  When the
theme widen (d) is “large” compared to a focal length of a lens
(non-macro distances), the
distant extent of vicious concentration (df) , nearby extent of vicious focus
(dn), and DOF can be computed as:

  • df ~ [H · d] / [H – d]

  • dn ~ [H · d] / [H + d]

  • DOF = df – dn ~ [2 · H · d²] / [H² – d²]

where d is a widen to a theme and H is a hyperfocal distance. 
We can now discriminate a DOF behind a theme and a DOF in front of the

  • DOF behind = df – d = d² / [H – d]

  • DOF in front = d – dn = d² / [H + d]

Note that a smaller a subject-camera widen (d) becomes in
comparison to a hyperfocal widen (H), a some-more uniformly a DOF is
separate in front and behind a subject, given (H – d) and (H + d) are
scarcely equal for values of d that are tiny compared to H.  In other words, the
common knowledge that 1/3 of a DOF is in front of a theme and 2/3 of
a DOF is behind a theme is not always true.  This “rule” is
current when customarily when a subject-camera distance, d, is equal to 1/3 the
hyperfocal distance,  H.  As a theme widen changes from
that sold value, a 1/3 – 2/3 DOF separate becomes a progressively
reduction accurate outline of a separate of a DOF in front and behind the

In another scenario, it is also engaging to note that as subject
widen approaches
a hyperfocal distance, a distant widen of vicious concentration approaches infinity, and a near
widen of vicious concentration approaches half a hyperfocal distance, so giving gigantic DOF beyond
half a hyperfocal distance.

Another engaging unfolding to cruise is that when a subject-camera
distance, d, is tiny compared to a hyperfocal distance, H, then, for
a same format, a DOF will be radically a same for a same framing
and f-ratio.  For example, 50mm during 10 ft has a same
framing as 100mm during 20 ft on 35mm FF.  If we fire a scene
during f/2 in any case, we will get a same DOF given a hyperfocal
widen is 137 ft for a CoC of 0.03mm (the value used in many DOF
calculators for 35mm FF, that corresponds to an 8×10 in. imitation viewed
from a widen of 10 inches), that is many incomparable than a theme distance
of 10 ft.  However, were we instead to review 24mm f/2 during 30 ft to
۴۸mm f/2 during 60 ft (same framing), we would get a
conflicting DOF given a hyperfocal widen works out to 30 ft (for a CoC
of 0.03mm), that is a same, rather than many larger, than the
subject-camera distance.

In any case, we can see that a DOF is a duty customarily of a hyperfocal
widen (H) and a theme widen (d).  The purpose of a focal
length (FL), f-ratio (f), and CoC (c) are contained in a hyperfocal

H ~ FL² / (f · c)

If we scale a focal length, f-ratio, and CoC by the
equilibrium ratio (R), a hyperfocal widen stays a same:

H’ ~ (FL·R)² / [(f · R) · (c · R)]

    = [FL² · R²] / [(f · c) · R²]

    = FL² / (f · c)

    = H

Consequently a DOF is immutable for a same perspective, framing, and
orifice diameter. By expressing H in terms of orifice hole (a), angle of viewpoint (AOV),
and a suit of a sensor erratic that a CoC covers (p), we get
a format eccentric countenance for a hyperfocal distance, and
hence DOF:

H ~ a / [2·p·tan (AOV/2)]

Thus, for non-macro situations, a DOF for a same perspective, framing,
and outlay widen is also a same.

A outcome of a incomparable sensor means that a longer
focal length is compulsory for a same viewpoint and framing, as good as a
incomparable f-ratio to obtain a same orifice diameter.  For example, let’s consider
images taken of a same stage from a same position with a same

• ۵DII during 80mm, f/8 (aperture hole = 80mm / 8 = 10mm)
• D300 during 53mm, f/5 (aperture hole = 53mm / 5 ~ 10mm)
• ۷D during 50mm, f/5 (aperture hole = 50mm / 5 = 10mm)
• E30 during 40mm, f/4 (aperture hole = 40mm / 4 = 10mm)

Since a perspective, framing, and orifice diameters are all a same, afterwards for the
same arrangement widen and observation distance, their DOFs will also be a same. As a side, if a shiver speeds are also a same (which will need a
aloft ISO for a aloft f-ratios to contend a same
brightness), afterwards a images will be made
with a same sum volume of light as well, that will outcome in
a same relations sound if a sensors have a same


Another reason that DOF is so important, even if DOF, per
se, is not an emanate to a photographer, is that it is also closely connected with sharpness, diffraction softening, and
vignetting.  The reason that DOF affects sharpness is twofold. First of all, as shown above, a DOF is directly associated to a aperture,
and a incomparable a orifice diameter, a incomparable a aberrations, and, in some
instances, a incomparable a margin curvature.  Secondly, a some-more shallow
DOF means that reduction of a stage will be within a DOF, and, by
definition, elements of a stage outward a DOF will not be sharp. 
This second indicate is generally important, since, as remarkable earlier, DOF
calculators customarily bottom their calculations off a CoC for an 8×10 print
noticed from 10 inches away.  Since so many now weigh a sharpness
of a lens on a basement of 100% crops on a mechanism monitor, a DOF that
is seen during 100% on a mechanism shade is significantly some-more slight than
a DOF computed by a calculators.


In offer to DOF and sharpness, a aperture is also closely connected to diffraction

Diffraction softening is a outcome of a call inlet of light
representing indicate sources as disks (known as
Airy Disks),
and is many really not, as is misunderstood by many, an outcome of
light “bouncing off” a orifice blades.  The hole of the
Airy Disk
is a duty of both a f-ratio and a wavelength of light:  d ~
۲٫۴۴·λ·f, where d is a hole of a Airy
Disk, λ is a wavelength of a light, and f is a

relations aperture

. Larger

relations aperture

(deeper DOFs) outcome in incomparable disks, as do longer
wavelengths of light (towards a red finish of the

manifest spectrum
) so not all colors will humour from diffraction
softening equally.  The wavelengths of light in a manifest spectrum
differ by approximately a means of two, so that means, for example, that
red light will humour around twice a volume of diffraction softening as
blue light.

Diffraction softening is destined during any aperture, and worsens as the
lens is stopped down.  However, other factors facade a effects of
the augmenting diffraction softening:  a augmenting DOF and the
lessening lens aberrations.  As a DOF increases, some-more and some-more of
the imitation is rendered “in focus”, creation a imitation seem sharper. 
In addition, as a orifice narrows, a aberrations in a lens
lessen given some-more of a orifice is masked by a orifice blades.  For far-reaching apertures, a augmenting DOF and alleviation lens
aberrations distant transcend a effects of diffraction softening.  At
small apertures, a retreat is true.  In a halt (often, but
not always,
around a dual stop interval), a dual effects roughly cancel any other
out, and a change indicate for a edges typically lags behind a balance
point for a core by around a stop (the edges customarily suffer
greater aberrations than a center).  In fact, it is not uncommon
for diffraction softening to be widespread right from far-reaching open for lenses
slower than f/5.6 homogeneous on FF, and so these lenses are sharpest
wide open (for a portions of a stage within a DOF, of course).

The best DOF is mostly some-more a matter of artistic intent
than resolved detail.  Clearly, some-more shoal DOFs have reduction of the
scene within vicious focus, yet this is by design.  What is not by
design is that, during really wider apertures, lens aberrations revoke the
detail even for a portions of a stage within a DOF, so even if the
photographer prefers a some-more shoal DOF, they competence select to stop down
simply to describe some-more fact where fact is important.  Likewise,
while a photographer competence stop down with a vigilant to get as many of the
scene as probable within a DOF so as to have a some-more minute photo
overall, portions of a stage that were within a DOF during wider
apertures will turn softer due to a effects of diffraction. 
Thus, a photographer must
balance a boost in fact gained by bringing some-more of a scene
within a DOF opposite fact mislaid for portions of a stage that
were within a DOF during wider apertures.  In addition, deeper DOFs
require smaller apertures, that means possibly longer shiver speeds
(increasing a risk/amount of suit fuzz and/or camera shake) or
greater sound given reduction light will tumble on a sensor during some-more narrow
apertures for a given shiver speed.

A common parable is that smaller pixels humour some-more from diffraction than
larger pixels.  On a contrary, for a given sensor widen and lens,
smaller pixels always outcome in some-more detail.  That said, as we stop down and a DOF deepens, we strech a indicate where
we start to remove fact due to diffraction softening.  As a
consequence, photos done with some-more pixels will start to remove their
fact advantage progressing and quicker than images done with fewer
pixels, but they will always keep some-more detail
Eventually, a additional fact afforded by a additional pixels becomes
trivial (most positively by f/32 on FF).  See

for an glorious instance of a outcome of pixel widen on
diffraction softening.

In terms of cross-format comparisons, all systems humour a same from
diffraction softening during a same DOF.  This does not meant that all
systems solve a same fact during a same DOF, as diffraction
softening is yet one of many sources of fuzz (lens aberrations, motion
blur, vast pixels, etc.).  However, a some-more we stop down (the
deeper a DOF), diffraction increasingly becomes a widespread source of
blur.  By a time we strech a homogeneous of f/32 on FF (f/22 on
APS-C, f/16 on mFT and 4/3), a differences in fortitude between
systems, regardless of a lens or pixel count, is trivial.

For example, cruise the

Canon 100 / 2.8L IS macro on a 5D2 (21 MP FF) vs a Olympus 14-42 /
۳٫۵-۵٫۶ pack lens on an L10 (10 MP 4/3)
.  Note that a macro
lens on FF resolves significantly some-more (to put it mildly) during a lenses’
respective optimal apertures, due to a macro lens being sharper, the
FF DSLR carrying significantly some-more pixels, and a boost factor
being half as many for FF vs 4/3.  However, as we stop down past
the rise aperture, all those advantages are asymptotically eaten divided by
diffraction, and by a time we get to f/32 on FF and f/16 on 4/3, the
systems solve roughly a same.

For a same tone and f-ratio, a Airy Disk will have
the same diameter, yet camber a smaller apportionment of a incomparable sensor than a
smaller sensor, so ensuing in reduction diffraction softening in the
final photo.  On a other hand, for a same tone and DOF, the
Airy Disk spans a same suit of all sensors, and so a effect
of diffraction softening is a same for all systems during a same DOF.

Let’s work an instance regulating immature light (λ
= ۵۳۰ nm = 0.00053mm). The hole of a Airy
Disk during f/8 is 2.44 · ۰٫۰۰۰۵۳mm·۸ = ۰٫۰۱۰۳mm,
and a hole of a Airy Disk during f/4 is half as many — 0.0052mm. 
For FF, a hole of a Airy Disk represents 0.0103mm / 43.3mm = 0.024%
of a sensor erratic during f/8 and 0.005mm / 21.6mm = 0.012% of the
diagonal  during f/4.   For mFT (4/3), a hole of a Airy Disk
represents 0.0103mm / 21.6mm = 0.048% during f/8 and 0.005mm / 21.6mm = 0.024%
during f/4.

Thus, during a same f-ratio, we
can see that a hole of a Airy Disk represents half a proportion
of a FF sensor as mFT (4/3), yet during a same DOF, a hole of a Airy Disk
represents a same suit of a sensor. In other words,
all systems will humour a same volume of diffraction softening during the
same DOF and arrangement dimensions
.  However, a complement that began
with some-more fortitude will always keep some-more resolution, yet that
resolution advantage will asymptotically disappear as a DOF deepens.  In
absolute terms, a commencement we will notice a effects of diffraction
softening is when a hole of a Airy Disk exceeds that of a pixel
(two pixels for a Bayer CFA), but, depending on how vast a imitation is
displayed, we competence not notice until a hole of a Airy Disk is much

Typically, a effects of diffraction softening do not
even start to turn apparent until f/11 on FF (f/7.1 on APS-C and f/5.6
on mFT — 4/3), and start to turn clever by f/22 on FF (f/14 on APS-C
and f/11 on mFT — 4/3).  By f/32 on FF (f/22 on APS-C, f/16 on mFT
— ۴/۳) a effects of diffraction softening are so clever that there is
little disproportion in fortitude between systems, regardless of a lens,
sensor size, or pixel count.

We can now summarize
the effects of diffraction softening as follows:

  • Diffraction is always present.  As a lens is
    stopped down, visual aberrations relieve and diffraction softening

  • The “diffraction singular aperture” is a f-ratio
    where a effects of diffraction
    softening overcome a alleviation lens aberrations, and
    will change from lens to lens as good as where in a support we are
    looking (e.g. core vs edges, where a edges typically, yet not
    always, loiter around a stop
    behind a center).

  • All else equal, some-more pixels will always solve more
    detail, regardless of other sources of blur, including diffraction.

  • All systems humour a same diffraction softening during a same DOF,
    but do not indispensably solve a same fact during a same DOF, as
    diffraction softening is merely one of many forms of fuzz (e.g. lens
    aberrations, suit blur, vast pixels, etc.).

  • As a DOF deepens, all systems asymptotically lose
    detail, and by f/32 on FF (f/22 on APS-C, f/16 on mFT — 4/3), the
    differences in fortitude between systems is trivial, regardless of
    the lens, sensor size, or pixel count.

It is value observant that some lens tests uncover many incomparable discrepancies in
a effects of diffraction softening that we would expect. Per a lens tests at
www.slrgear.com, we can see outrageous disparities between f / 16 and f / 22 even with high end
lenses like a
Zuiko 50 / 2 macro
(7 blades) and
Zuiko 150 / 2 (9 blades), that are distant incomparable than can be accounted
for by a teenager differences in a orifice shapes.  In fact, the

Canon 100 / 2.8 macro
and the

Sigma 105 / 2.8 macro
both have 8 blades, yet uncover a same huge
differences in sharpness from f / 22 to f / 32 on 1.6x as a Zuikos. 
The many expected reason for this is that during a smallest aperture, not all lenses are equally accurate.

For example, cruise a 50mm lens and a consistent “aperture bias” of -0.5mm, that is, a lens always sets a orifice 0.5mm smaller than it should be (whether as a
outcome messy peculiarity control or messy design).  At f/4, a orifice hole should be 50mm / 4 = 12.5mm.  However, a disposition of -0.5mm would make a orifice hole 12mm instead, ensuing in a loyal f-ratio of 50mm / 12mm = f / 4.17
— ۱/۹ of a stop off — that is insignificant. At f / 8, a orifice hole should be 50mm / 8 = 6.25mm.  Again, a disposition of -0.5mm would make a orifice hole 5.75mm ensuing in a loyal f-ratio of 50mm / 5.75mm = f / 8.7 —
۱/۴ of a stop off — adjacent on significant, yet still tiny adequate to go neglected by many people.  At f / 22, however, a blunder becomes many some-more of an issue. The orifice hole should be 50mm / 22 = 2.27mm.  This time, a -0.5mm disposition would make the
orifice hole 1.77mm for a loyal f-ratio of 50mm / 1.77mm = f / 28 — 2/3 of a stop conflicting — really noticeable, and ensuing in a substantial disproportion in diffraction softening during such tiny apertures. Furthermore, a “aperture bias” need not be constant, and
could change depending on a comparison f-ratio, producing even greater
differences during tiny apertures.

Of course, this supposition for a discrepancies in a effects of
diffraction softening in a SLR Gear tests would need to be accurate by
comparing a exposures during conflicting f-ratios.  In addition, the
effects of vignetting can obscure a emanate during far-reaching apertures, but, as
demonstrated above, tiny errors in a orifice diameters are considerate at
wider apertures anyway.  Thus, we would exam during tiny apertures, such
as f / 22 and smaller, where a discrepancies due to aperture
disposition blunder are many noticeable.  Unfortunately, SLR Gear does not
horde (or even still have) these images to make such a comparison, so this
surmise needs to be verified.  Furthermore, it is not doubtful that
an “aperture bias” could have been an emanate with a sold lens they
tested, yet not autochthonous to all (or most) copies of a lens. Furthermore, while it is obvious that the
shape of a orifice plays a purpose in how a bokeh is rendered, it
is doubtful that it plays any purpose in a grade of diffraction softening
so prolonged as a area of a orifice is a same. Regardless, a effects of diffraction softening are
not quite poignant until really tiny apertures.

To get a DOF incomparable than what a lens can stop
down to achieve, we possibly use a shorter lens and TC (teleconverter), or
support wider and stand to a preferred framing. 
The outcome of a TC is to greaten a

relations aperture

by a same means as the
focal length. For example, by regulating a 50mm macro during f/22 with a 2x TC, we would effectively be during 100mm f/45.  While some-more convenient
than regulating a TC, a downside to framing wider and gathering is that it costs us pixels. 
However, given a lenses for all systems can
stop down to a diffraction singular fortitude of a sensor, many of a detail
mislaid by gathering would have been mislaid from diffraction softening
regardless.  For example, an picture during 100mm f/32 will have a same
DOF and scarcely a same fact as an picture during 50mm f/16 taken from the
same widen and afterwards cropped to a same framing, despite
carrying 1/4 a series of pixels on a subject.  This is given a f/32 image
has already mislaid roughly a same volume of fact due to diffraction
softening, nonetheless it will still keep somewhat some-more detail, due to the
oversampling of a incomparable series of diffraction singular pixels still
renders somewhat some-more fact than a fewer series of incomparable pixels.

Of course, it would be good if we didn’t have to stop down to increase
sharpness for a portions of a picture within a DOF, generally as this
helps us equivocate a effects of diffraction softening.  For example,
let’s contend we are holding a imitation of a landscape where a whole stage is
within a DOF, even during f/2.8. Thus, there would be no reason to fire during a conflicting f-ratio on
conflicting systems to contend a same DOF.  However, a aberrations
for incomparable apertures are some-more problematical than a aberrations for
smaller apertures, and, once again, we comprehend that incomparable sensor system
will need a aloft f-ratio to contend a same orifice diameter. Thus,
even yet a DOF competence not an emanate per se, a aberrations, as good as
vignetting, many positively can be.

Of course, one competence ask given we simply don’t select a settings on each
complement that furnish a “best” formula for each. Well, of
march that is how we would use a systems. The territory on
talks some-more about this.

Putting it all together in terms of AOV, DOF, and
shiver speed, let’s demeanour during some examples of homogeneous settings from common cameras
(using a same AOV) with all f-ratios and ISOs dull to a nearest 1/3
stop, that uncover how a accessible DOFs on conflicting formats differ:


Focal Multiplier












Canon S3



f / 2.8






f / 3.2



Canon Pro1



f / 4






f / 8



Sigma SD14



/ ۹



Canon 40D



f / 10






/ ۱۱



 Canon 1DIII



/ ۱۳



Canon 5D



/ ۱۶



Leica S2



f / 20



Mamiya ZD



/ ۲۱






The bearing time (shutter speed), obviously, is a length of time a shiver stays open
to grasp a preferred exposure.  The reason Equivalent photos have
a same shiver speed is given a volume of suit fuzz will be the
same for a given shiver speed.  However, there
are many times when we would not review formats with a same shiver speed given there is adequate light to
stop down to grasp a preferred DOF and still have a quick enough
shiver so that suit fuzz is a non-issue.  Under these circumstances, a incomparable sensor complement can broach both broach some-more detail
theme to lens sharpness and pixel count) in offer to a cleaner image
given a revoke shiver speed formula in some-more light descending on a sensor
for a given DOF.

For example, let’s contend we are sharpened a landscape.  The following
settings would be expected possibilities for a sold scene:

• ۶D

during 24mm, f/11, 1/100, ISO 100

D500 during 16mm, f/7.1, 1/250, ISO 100

• ۸۰

D during 15mm, f/7.1, 1/250, ISO 100

EM5II during 12mm, f/5.6, 1/400, ISO 100

While landscapes are a common scenario, and such a comparison is of
unsentimental value to many photographers, we contingency take caring to note that this
partially homogeneous unfolding is customarily current when a shiver speeds
are amply high to equivocate suit blur, and, if a tripod is not being used,
to equivocate camera shake.  If, instead, we were intent in street
photography nearby dusk, we would need to review with entirely equivalent
settings given a sufficient shiver speed would be essential to stopping
suit fuzz for a compulsory DOF:

• ۶D during 24mm, f/11, 1/100, ISO 400

D500 during 16mm, f/7.1, 1/100, ISO 250


D during 15mm, f/7.1, 1/100, ISO 250

EM5II during 12mm, f/5.6, 1/100, ISO 100

Alternatively, if one complement has IS and a other complement does not, afterwards if
suit fuzz is not an issue, afterwards a IS complement will be means to use the
revoke shiver speed if a tripod is not used on a non-IS system.  In
this case, a complement with IS will have a sound advantage for a given
DOF given some-more light will tumble on a sensor.

So if we are regulating anything other than bottom ISO, afterwards we can't discount
a significance of shiver speed in comparing systems, given a customarily time
we would not be during bottom ISO is when shiver speed is a factor.  Under
these circumstances, a customarily approach for a incomparable formats to grasp less
relations sound than a smaller formats is by regulating a some-more shoal DOF, rather
than lifting a ISO, to contend a required shiver speed.



The liughtness of a imitation is a how splendid a photo
appears, and is customarily practiced by a ISO environment of a camera. 
Let’s contend we have a ideal sensor that is a photon counter.  That
is, any photon that falls on a pixel is available so that if 100
photons fell on a pixel, a picture record would record a value of 100 at
base ISO.  Then during ISO 400, a picture record would record a value of
۴۰۰, during ISO 1600, a picture record would record a value of 1600, etc.,
where “brighter” values would be displayed on a mechanism guard or
printed on a printer with incomparable “brightness”.  See

for a many some-more in abyss discussion.





The arrangement measure is a earthy widen of a noticed image, whether
it be a imitation or on a mechanism monitor  People, including reviewers,
tend to review IQ during a pixel level, rather than a picture level, which
leads to improper conclusions about a image, unless a images
are done from a same series of pixels.  If dual images are done from
a conflicting series of pixels, if we are to review them during a pixel
level, afterwards we need to properly resample a images to a common
series of pixels. 
We can boost a IQ of an picture by augmenting possibly a local pixel
count or augmenting a peculiarity of a particular pixel.  Thus, if we
review dual images with unsymmetrical pixel depends during a pixel turn (often
referred to as a “100% comparison”), we are except a boost in
IQ that comes from a additional pixels, that is discussed in more
fact in a Megapixels:  Quality vs Quantity
territory of a essay.

For example, let’s contend we wish to review a Canon 1DsIII (21 MP) and
a Nikon D3 (12 MP).  Comparing images from a dual systems during the
pixel turn is a same as comparing 16×24 in. prints from a 1DsIII to
۱۲×۱۸ in. prints from a D3, that is frequency a satisfactory comparison.  The best approach to review images is to review in the
demeanour that they will be displayed.  For example, if we are going to
imitation a images, afterwards imitation them and compare. Of course, this is
unreal to do unless we already had entrance to both systems.  And, even
if a reviewer provides us with a files to imitation ourselves, that is a
bit of a pain, and positively not a basement for an design end that
we can share with others as all will not be regulating a same printer.

So, what to do?

The easiest resolution is to resample both images to a
common dimension that is during slightest as vast as a incomparable picture and then
review during a pixel level. The reason to review during a dimension during least
as vast as a incomparable picture is given downsampling a incomparable picture will
means it to remove detail, which, we presume, is one of a qualities of IQ
being totalled in a comparison.  In addition, if we are comparing
relations noise, it customarily creates clarity to do so during a same turn of detail, so we
would request NR to a some-more minute picture to review a turn of fact of
a reduction minute image.  Of
course, caring need be taken in a resampling process, given a bad resampling process can lead to
improper end about a analogous IQ between systems.  This
is generally loyal when comparing relations noise.  We simply cannot
downsample a incomparable record to a measure of a smaller file.  We
initial need to request NR (or a specific form of blur) and afterwards downsample.  In any event, it is
improved to upsample a smaller picture rather than downsample a larger

Again, regulating a instance of a 1DsIII vs D3
comparison, we could resample both images to 54 MP (300 PPI for a 20×30
in. print) and afterwards review during a pixel level. Of course, there’s
zero enchanting about 54 MP, yet we would like to incorporate some kind of
“future-proofing” for comparisons with destiny cameras, and need
some value incomparable than 21 MP, so 300 PPI for a 20×30 in. imitation sounds
like a good “standard”, as really few would imitation incomparable than
this, no matter what pixel depends a destiny binds or what format they
shoot.  Of course, for those that do imitation larger, they would, of
course, wish to review during a incomparable outlay size.

Another choice would be for a reviewer to imitation the
images during a accumulation of sizes (e.g. 4×6, 8×12, 12×18, 16×24, and 20×30
inches) on a top-of-the-line printer, scan
a prints, and afterwards review a scans from a same widen prints.  ‘Tis a
pain, yet substantially a many satisfactory approach to compare, nonetheless we overtly don’t
know if it would furnish conflicting formula than resampling a dual images
to a “appropriate” PPI for any imitation size.  And, of course, we can't bonus a effects of viewing
images on non-calibrated monitors (I’ve seen some-more than one comparison
where someone claimed a highlights of a picture to be blown with several
others agreeable in that they need to regulate their monitor).

Thus, comparing images that have different
pixel depends during a pixel turn is a really bad approach to review a IQ
between systems.  However, a closer a pixel depends are, a improved such
a comparison will estimate a tangible differences. For example, it’s
reasonable to contend that a comparison between a 12.1 MP Nikon D700, 12.1
MP Nikon D3, 12.3 MP Nikon D300, and a 12.7 MP Canon 5D would be easily
“close enough” yet resampling.  But when comparing a 10.1
MP Canon 40D, 10.1 MP 1DIII, or a 10.1 MP Olympus E3 to the
aforementioned cameras during a pixel level, we are commencement to widen a
bit (12% disproportion in linear pixel count), and we are positively stretching when comparing a 1DsIII to any of
a above cameras during a pixel turn for local picture sizes (32%
disproportion in linear pixel count between a 1DsIII and a D3, for

So, while no comparison is yet a potential
problems, a easiest mistake to scold is to delicately resample images to a common
dimension, as good as requesting NR as required for comparing relative
noise, before comparing during a pixel level.


Article source: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

پاسخ دهید

نشانی ایمیل شما منتشر نخواهد شد.