DoF - D90 Full Size - a photo on Flickriver

D90
70-200mm f/2.8 VR II @ 200mm
f/8 in Aperture Priority Mode
Focus Point: Dead Center on the "A" in Arrowhead

Why must we assign a number to beauty?

DX vs. FX Depth of Field Test (1 of 3 images in this set www.flickr.com/photos/pva1964/sets/72157623286710404/ )

I mounted the 70-200mm on the tripod via the lenses Tripod Collar. I then made this image of water bottles.

There is a lot of talk about the DoF coming out of a DX and FX bodies. While I certainly am NOT an optical physicists, I have it on pretty good authority that my information is correct.

In practical usage , the sensor size has no effect on Depth of Field.

I could be wrong. After all, I am, as one recent fellow put it, "regurgitating" information.

I try to have fun making pictures. So, I made a couple of pictures. One with the D90 and the other with the D3s. I sized them in PhotoShop Elements so that the subject would remain the same size in both posts.

UPDATEThis method has been questioned.. so I took the original file from the D90 and started again from the beginning. This copy was not resized to match subject size of the D3s.

The issue arose when I suggested, perhaps a bit too harshly, that a popular Depth of Field Calculator (That I had actually purchased for my own use) was, in fact, flawed.

The middle bottle is focused at about 5' from the camera in both the D90 image and the D3s image. According to the DoF calculator the depth of field should have compared like this:

D90 (DX) Focus Distance: 5.00'
DoF: 4' 6.8" - 5' 6.2"
Total DoF: just under 1 foot

D3s (FX) Focus Distance: 5.00'
DoF: 4' 4.6" - 5' 9.9"
Total DoF: Just under 1.5 feet

Meaning that the D3s should show a DoF nearly 2" deeper on the closer bottles and over 3.5" deeper on the back bottles. Since the bottles were placed 3" apart, this should be VERY easy to see... especially in the back.

I don't see it. Play this set as a slide show and take a look for your self.

www.flickr.com/photos/pva1964/sets/72157623286710404/

If I had to guess I would say that the creator of the DoF Calculator in question took the 1.5x cropping factor and applied it as if it were a 1.5x magnification factor. So, I stand by my earlier criticism of the DoF calculator mention earlier.

Additionally, I stand by my assessment that the cropping of a DX sensor vs. a FX sensor has no practical effect on the final image DoF.

I will hedge a little bit and say that when the final images from each sensor are viewed, the DX image might appear to have less DoF. In order to match the print sizes, the DX image would need to be enlarged more and therefore you would be able to examine area of apparent sharpness more closely than with an FX sensor enlargement. Much in the same way your image look to be sharper on the back of your camera than on your computer screen.

If you still disagree, please post the images from your tests so we can all see what you see.

Now, let's get back to Keeping Flickr Fun!

Taken on: January 26, 2010

Tags:

Nikon

D90

DoF

Depth of Field

DX vs. FX

Available Light

Water

Water Bottle « less

Sets appears in: • D90 • 1,500+ Views more » • DX vs. FX DoF • Weird Examples • 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II « less

Camera: Nikon D90, f/8.0, 1/5 sec, 200mm (=300mm), ISO 200 (more info) (hide info)

Camera:	Nikon D90
Aperture:	f/8.0
Exposure Time:	0.2 sec (1/5)
Focal Length:	200mm (35mm equivalent: 300mm)
ISO:	200
Exposure Bias:	0 EV
Flash:	No Flash
Exposure Program:	Aperture-priority AE
Exposure Mode:	Auto
Metering Mode:	Multi-segment
White Balance:	Manual
Light Source:	Tungsten (Incandescent)
Color Space:	sRGB
Software:	Adobe Photoshop Elements 6.0 Macintosh
Show full info

Stats: 7,748 views / 6 comments

Link to this photo view:
Link to this photo large view: