I agree with David on the last point. and would also throw in that I don't think it makes any difference if you are using digital or film. On the contrary, with digital you can take as many different frames at different focal planes as you would want at no additional cost.
And I believe that the apparent DOF is much greater as you get smaller and smaller sensors. I often hear the complaint that with the smaller sensors it is harder to practice the art of selective focus unless you had some very fast lenses.
Aram -------------------------------------------------- From: "David Young" <dsy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 8:48 AM To: <leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [LRflex] Re: IMG: More hairy(spiky) legs - Crab Spider revisited
G'Mornin' Douglas!
<Snip>
QED - macro-photography with sufficient depth of focus is technically impossible with digital cameras - and gets more impossible the smaller the sensor is.I'm not so sure about that.... The apparent DOF seems much larger with my E3 than with the DMR. And the DOF is far larger in P&S cameras, with very smallsensors. Can anyone here explain the physics of this, in a "made for morons" explanation? David. ------ Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at: http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/ Archives are at: //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
------ Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at: http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/ Archives are at: //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
