login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > Full Frame or low-budget Medium Format: DOF Search   Reply
Photographer
C.C. Holdings
Posts: 594
New York, New York, US


should I get a relatively expensive full frame, or a relatively cheap digital medium format

I don't have experience with MF cameras, I'll rent one first if that sort of thing is available

I want slim depth of field (ie. things blurred pretty heavily except what I have in focus), ability to shoot in tight spaces at lower focal lengths (24mm - 50mm)

my understanding is that larger sensor will gather light I want faster, as well as give me more view with lenses, but I don't know how this extends to medium format silicon.

Medium format cameras don't go to high ISOs like newer DSLRs but I'll be using lights

anyway, thoughts?

for FF I would be looking at 5d Mark III
for MF I would be looking at Pentax 645D
Jul 11 13 10:05 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Art Silva
Posts: 9,254
Santa Barbara, California, US


If you can find cheap Digital MF, let us know asap. I don't think you can find one less than $10 grand for body alone.

There are rentals out there at your local camera shops, that will be your best bet before putting down the plastic on your very own.

The extra real estate on the 6x6 or 6x7 is what gives your the added image quality and detail and the amount of light gathered depends on what glass you put in front of it (add at least another 10 grand)
Jul 11 13 10:18 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25,319
Bath, England, United Kingdom


Exactly how narrow do you want your DOF to be?

An 85 f/1.2 on a 5d3 is going to give you something like 1 inch at 6 feet and f/1.2...

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html





Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com
Jul 11 13 10:22 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Broughton
Posts: 2,220
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada


Art Silva Photography wrote:
If you can find cheap Digital MF, let us know asap. I don't think you can find one less than $10 grand for body alone.

try 7 grand, retail, and compatible with relatively affordable used lenses from the film era. http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-645D-Mediu … 90&sr=1-58

Jul 11 13 10:31 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Tulack
Posts: 547
Albuquerque, New Mexico, US


C.C. Holdings  wrote:
should I get a relatively expensive full frame, or a relatively cheap digital medium format

MF camera average 10.000-50.000$ I think you are asking in a wrong place.

C.C. Holdings  wrote:
I'll rent one first if that sort of thing is available

It is available. About 1.000-3.000 for weekend.

http://www.borrowlenses.com/category/ha … ome-slider

C.C. Holdings  wrote:
I want slim depth of field (ie. things blurred pretty heavily except what I have in focus), ability to shoot in tight spaces at lower focal lengths (24mm - 50mm)

Wide angle lens would not give you "Slim" DOF. They are not made for it.

C.C. Holdings  wrote:
my understanding is that larger sensor will gather light I want faster,

Sensor has nothing to do with speed of gathering light. It's lens priority. Aperture of your lens is your speed.

C.C. Holdings  wrote:
for FF I would be looking at 5d Mark III

FF is not even close to MF. FF is 35 mm censor, when MF up to 70mm. Example http://www.samys.com/p/Digital-SLRS/020 … Mgodhg0ANg

Jul 11 13 10:44 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
-JAY-
Posts: 6,514
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Canon full frame with 50mm 1.0 or 85 1.2 --- can't get much shallower than that - it actually breaks online DOF calculators when you put any measurement more than inches.. At one foot, the DOF is 7mm.
Jul 11 13 10:53 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Puff
Posts: 986
Montara, California, US


Tulack wrote:
Are you sure you know how to use camera? Sensor has nothing to do with speed of gathering light. It's lens priority. Aperture of your lens is your speed.

Well, available ISOs of the sensor DOES have a lot to do with the speed of gathering light.  I certainly agree that aperture is a primary consideration for lenses, but not quite so accurate to say that the sensor has nothing to do with it.

Jul 11 13 10:55 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Tulack
Posts: 547
Albuquerque, New Mexico, US


Michael Puff wrote:
Well, available ISOs of the sensor DOES have a lot to do with the speed of gathering light.  I certainly agree that aperture is a primary consideration for lenses, but not quite so accurate to say that the sensor has nothing to do with it.

True. Most MF censors limited to 800.

I think OP mixed up Medium Format with cropped censor.

Jul 11 13 10:57 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Zack Zoll
Posts: 2,392
Glens Falls, New York, US


Michael Broughton wrote:

try 7 grand, retail, and compatible with relatively affordable used lenses from the film era. http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-645D-Mediu … 90&sr=1-58

In theory.  Of course, wide angle lenses generally cost more for medium format cameras, and very often digital MF cameras have a sensor as large as their film size ... meaning that you can expect to pay more for less, if wide angle is what you want.

Then again, unless you have a larger format(like the Pentax), then you can't expect any sort of shallow depth of field with a wide angle lens.

If you want a wide view, and a shallow depth of field, the closest thing to "affordable" is to buy a used 4x5 camera.  Yes, it costs and arm and a leg to shoot and develop, and yes it's heavy and slow to operate.  But the physics of lenses and sensors/film mean that you can't really get a shallow depth of field AND a wide view with much less.  A 90mm lens on a 4x5 will give you an angle of view similar to a 30mm on a 35mm camera ... but since it's a 90mm, lens you'll get the DOF of a short telephoto lens.

Then again, your maximum aperture is probably going to be f/4 or f/5.6, and it's going to be a bitch to focus wide open.

Oh, and the camera won't let in much light; I don't think anyone even makes colour film over 400 ISO.  Then again, your digital MF cameras tend to have lower ISOs and more noise too.

Are you starting to see the conundrum here?  Unless you want to regularly make 16x20 or larger prints, you can have absolutely any feature you want in a camera, and at a very reasonable price.  But you can't have every feature you want in a camera, no matter how much you're willing to spend.

Jul 11 13 10:57 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Zack Zoll
Posts: 2,392
Glens Falls, New York, US


-JAY- wrote:
Canon full frame with 50mm 1.0 or 85 1.2 --- can't get much shallower than that - it actually breaks online DOF calculators when you put any measurement more than inches.. At one foot, the DOF is 7mm.

Of if you're patient, wait until there's a full-frame mirrorless, and put a 50 f/95 on it.

I wouldn't bother with Canon's 50 f/1, regardless of what you can spend.  The prices are ridiculous.  To give you an idea of how stupid they are, I've seen closing prices that were higher than the cost of a Leica 50 f/1, plus a Leica digital body.  Not often mind you, but the fact that it happens at all should say something.

Besides ... if you're got 7mm of DOF, it's not like the AF system is exactly going to be doing you any favours.

Jul 11 13 11:02 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Ethereal Pixels
Posts: 692
San Francisco, California, US


If you truly have the need for roughly a medium format equivalent, then you should look very carefully at the Nikon D800e.  It has become a very popular camera within the world of commercial fashion photographers.  In fact, one of my good friends is a noted fashion photographer in NYC and he has a very significant investment in Hasselblad gear, in addition to his Canon full frame setup.  We were shooting together recently, and he said that he wished he had purchased the D800e, instead.  His partner in NYC shoots with one, and he likes the image quality better on the 800e, as well as its much better user ergonomics. 

I shoot with a D4 and the 800e, using the 800e mostly for fine art and landscape work, or anything that I feel will need the extra megapixels.  The dynamic range on the 800e is very impressive, as is the image quality.  Independent lab tests will verify this if you look them up.
Jul 11 13 11:15 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Broughton
Posts: 2,220
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada


Zack Zoll wrote:

don't you ever get tired of spouting nonsense? i'm certainly tired of reading it.

Jul 11 13 11:16 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
michael___
Posts: 303
New York, New York, US


C.C. Holdings  wrote:
should I get a relatively expensive full frame, or a relatively cheap digital medium format

I don't have experience with MF cameras, I'll rent one first if that sort of thing is available

I want slim depth of field (ie. things blurred pretty heavily except what I have in focus), ability to shoot in tight spaces at lower focal lengths (24mm - 50mm)

my understanding is that larger sensor will gather light I want faster, as well as give me more view with lenses, but I don't know how this extends to medium format silicon.

Medium format cameras don't go to high ISOs like newer DSLRs but I'll be using lights

anyway, thoughts?

for FF I would be looking at 5d Mark III
for MF I would be looking at Pentax 645D

If you want shallow DOF then I think youre better off either going with a medium format film camera or a full-frame DSLR.

The Pentax 75mm f2.8 would feel like a 50mm f1.4 on full frame. Not THAT fast.

If you want shallow DOF then you are better off going with
-Pentax 67 105mm f2.5 (cheap)
-Mamiya 645 80mm f1.9 (cheap)
-Norita  66 80mm f2.0 (moderate)
-Contax 645 80mm f2 (expensive)
-Hasselblad 110mm f2 (expensive)

I am not sure if any of these have digital options but if they did, then it wouldn't be that cheap.

If you are even more ambitious then get an 8x10 camera with a 300mm f5.6 lens and get it over with.

Jul 11 13 11:20 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Zack Zoll
Posts: 2,392
Glens Falls, New York, US


Michael Broughton wrote:
don't you ever get tired of spouting nonsense? i'm certainly tired of reading it.

That depends.  Do you ever get tired of picking fights on forums?  Because if you need someone to play the idiot so you can play the genius, I'm game smile

Jul 11 13 11:20 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
michael___
Posts: 303
New York, New York, US


from dofmaster

FF: 50mm f1.0 = 0.72 ft depth of field at 10 feet.
      50mm f1.2 = 0.86 ft depth of field at 10 feet.
      50mm f1.4 = 1.01 ft depth of field at 10 feet.
      50mm f2.0 = 1.45 ft depth of field at 10 feet.
645: 75mm f2.8 = 1.36 ft depth of field at 10 feet.
8x10: 300mm f5.6 = 0.69 ft depth of field at 10 feet.
          360mm f5.6 = 0.24 ft depth of field at 10 feet.
Jul 11 13 11:30 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Zack Zoll
Posts: 2,392
Glens Falls, New York, US


Michael Sergio Barnes wrote:
If you want shallow DOF then I think youre better off either going with a medium format film camera or a full-frame DSLR.

The Pentax 75mm f2.8 would feel like a 50mm f1.4 on full frame. Not THAT fast.

If you want shallow DOF then you are better off going with
-Pentax 67 105mm f2.5 (cheap)
-Mamiya 645 80mm f1.9 (cheap)
-Norita  66 80mm f2.0 (moderate)
-Contax 645 80mm f2 (expensive)
-Hasselblad 110mm f2 (expensive)

I am not sure if any of these have digital options but if they did, then it wouldn't be that cheap.

If you are even more ambitious then get an 8x10 camera with a 300mm f5.6 lens and get it over with.

The Hassy 110mm f/2 only works with 2000-series cameras - so keep that in mind.  I know that the 500 series works well with digital backs, but I have no idea about the 2000 series.

Jul 11 13 11:42 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Raoul Isidro Images
Posts: 6,107
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia


Just get full frame.

Worry about the others later.

Play around with it.

.
Jul 11 13 11:49 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ultimate dream
Posts: 848
London, England, United Kingdom


Raoul Isidro Images wrote:
Just get full frame.

Worry about the others later.

Play around with it.

.

Really, this is the best advise you can come up with?

Jul 12 13 03:49 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Frozen Instant Imagery
Posts: 3,688
Dublin, Dublin, Ireland


Tulack wrote:

True. Most MF censors limited to 800.

I think OP mixed up Medium Format with cropped censor.

A censor is a person who decides what we are allowed to see.

A sensor is the part of the camera that records the image.

It's not a subtle difference smile

I do like the idea of cropping a censor, though.

Jul 12 13 04:53 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chris David Photography
Posts: 441
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia


A medium format is also much more cumbersome and slow to work with in comparison to your Canon/Nikon DSLR's and also limited to working with lower ISO settings. Used correctly and you get the best image quality provided its 16bit. Your full frame DSLR's would provide you with great shooting versatility and speed which I find more important then absolute image quality. I've seen a new photographer spend over $60K on an MF kit with end results looking likes its taken from a P&S and Instagram.
Needing a much shallow depth of field go for your telephoto range like 200mm 2.8 100/150/180mm macros and step in closer.
Jul 12 13 05:14 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
C.C. Holdings
Posts: 594
New York, New York, US


Tulack wrote:
True. Most MF censors limited to 800.

I think OP mixed up Medium Format with cropped censor.

I was pretty clear on which camera models I would be looking at, it is mentioned right there in the OP

Pentax 645D is a relatively cheap MF camera

Jul 12 13 05:21 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
C.C. Holdings
Posts: 594
New York, New York, US


Tulack wrote:
Sensor has nothing to do with speed of gathering light. It's lens priority. Aperture of your lens is your speed.

erm no, the number of photosites on a sensor and how many photons each photosite can hold contribute to how fast it can expose an image

aperture is how large a whole in the lens is, dictating how many photons can get through a whole in the lens at once

a larger sensor, ie 70mm vs 35mm, will have more photosites (in theory) and therefore gather light faster than a sensor with less

this will contribute to exposure much more than the lens. a factor that isn't usually relevant because most people aren't dealing with sensors this large

Jul 12 13 05:23 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mike Collins
Posts: 1,832
Orlando, Florida, US


If all you would want an MF for is for a shallow depth of field shot on SOME images, it's going to be a total waste of A LOT of money.  Depending on what you and WHO you shoot for, the "NEED" for MF is not a huge one these days.

If you do a lot of commercial and have clients or shots that demand MF, sure, I can see that.  If it's just for your own pleasure, even if you can afford it, you'll get more bang for the buck with a FF dslr.
Jul 12 13 05:30 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25,319
Bath, England, United Kingdom


C.C. Holdings  wrote:
erm no, the number of photosites on a sensor and how many photons each photosite can hold contribute to how fast it can expose an image

a larger sensor, ie 70mm vs 35mm, will have more photosites (in theory) and therefore gather light faster than a sensor with less

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/askville/435748_6931595_mywrite/bunny-pancake.gif

Personally, I think any sensor will expose an image at the speed of light!



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Jul 12 13 05:54 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
C.C. Holdings
Posts: 594
New York, New York, US


That Italian Guy wrote:
Personally, I think any sensor will expose an image at the speed of light!



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

its amazing to think about, but the shutter speed can actually limits this, so that the sensor is not exposed to light (enough photons) long enough, even though light moves so fast.

when you have a larger sensor, with more and deeper photosites, my understanding is that more photons are captured in a lesser amount of time. thereby giving you a better exposure with tighter light constrictions

Jul 12 13 06:01 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
R.EYE.R
Posts: 2,788
Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan


Ethereal Pixels  wrote:
If you truly have the need for roughly a medium format equivalent, then you should look very carefully at the Nikon D800e.  It has become a very popular camera within the world of commercial fashion photographers.  In fact, one of my good friends is a noted fashion photographer in NYC and he has a very significant investment in Hasselblad gear, in addition to his Canon full frame setup.  We were shooting together recently, and he said that he wished he had purchased the D800e, instead.  His partner in NYC shoots with one, and he likes the image quality better on the 800e, as well as its much better user ergonomics. 

I shoot with a D4 and the 800e, using the 800e mostly for fine art and landscape work, or anything that I feel will need the extra megapixels.  The dynamic range on the 800e is very impressive, as is the image quality.  Independent lab tests will verify this if you look them up.

After buying 5DmkIII I second your friend..

Only thing that keeps me with Canon is my CV125/2.5, Leica 100/2.8 APO and Rokkor 58/1.2...plus rest of my adopted CY glass.

Jul 12 13 06:27 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ChanStudio - OtherSide
Posts: 5,324
Alpharetta, Georgia, US


C.C. Holdings  wrote:
should I get a relatively expensive full frame, or a relatively cheap digital medium format

I don't have experience with MF cameras, I'll rent one first if that sort of thing is available

I want slim depth of field (ie. things blurred pretty heavily except what I have in focus), ability to shoot in tight spaces at lower focal lengths (24mm - 50mm)

my understanding is that larger sensor will gather light I want faster, as well as give me more view with lenses, but I don't know how this extends to medium format silicon.

Medium format cameras don't go to high ISOs like newer DSLRs but I'll be using lights

anyway, thoughts?

for FF I would be looking at 5d Mark III
for MF I would be looking at Pentax 645D

You are comparing wrong camera with each other.  Canon has not come up with the 40MP ish camera yet.  It will in the future.


Currently, between the 645D and the D800e, I would go with the D800e in a heart beat.  There are lots of comparison between those two (just google it).

Shadow DOF is sometimes overrated.  It is great to be able to control shadow DOF but many times, you don't need it.

  Also remember lenses have fringing.  Lens like the Canon 85mm f1.2L II does produce heavy purple fringing at wide open.  I would take a lens that produce great sharpness across the frame, great tone and less fringing over the same focal length lens that is one stop faster i.e. (f2.0 vs f1.4).

Jul 12 13 06:33 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Zack Zoll
Posts: 2,392
Glens Falls, New York, US


Frozen Instant Imagery wrote:

A censor is a person who decides what we are allowed to see.

A sensor is the part of the camera that records the image.

It's not a subtle difference smile

I do like the idea of cropping a censor, though.

I thought he was talking about a device for holding incense smile

Jul 12 13 04:56 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DLH Photo
Posts: 317
Seattle, Washington, US


Before you choose between digital medium format and digital full frame 35mm I think you should do more research.

Here is one link to get you started.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori … r-size.htm

I have thought about going digital medium format from digital 35mm.

From what I have read there are some advantages to digital medium format over digital 35mm but not that many.

The other thing you should know is that there are different sized sensors in the digital medium format cameras. The sensor in the Pentax 645D is smaller than the one in the Phase One IQ260 or IQ280.
Jul 12 13 07:00 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jakov Markovic
Posts: 1,102
Belgrade, Central Serbia, Serbia


Pentax 645d is 7000$ and lenses even AF ones are affordable.

MF is much slower than 35 mm, and that is the reason all top photographers have an slr, just in case of low light, more action filled shots etc.
Jul 12 13 07:25 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Instinct Images
Posts: 22,507
San Diego, California, US


C.C. Holdings  wrote:

erm no, the number of photosites on a sensor and how many photons each photosite can hold contribute to how fast it can expose an image

aperture is how large a whole in the lens is, dictating how many photons can get through a whole in the lens at once

a larger sensor, ie 70mm vs 35mm, will have more photosites (in theory) and therefore gather light faster than a sensor with less

this will contribute to exposure much more than the lens. a factor that isn't usually relevant because most people aren't dealing with sensors this large

You don't need to worry about the size of the photosites since you choose an ISO and it normalizes between different brands, sensor size, etc.

At best the larger sensor with larger photosites will be less noisy than a smaller sensor at the same ISO. But it seems that there is a lot more advanced technology in sensors and processors from Canon, Nikon, and Sony than the medium format manufacturers since they sell at significantly higher volume.

To answer your OP: I'd go with the 5D Mark III. Plenty of lenses and accessories to work with and easier to set up and use. Pick up some fast lenses and you can get the shallow DOF you're looking for and you won't need bright lights (in fact you won't want bright lights or you'll have to stop down).

Jul 12 13 07:41 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25,319
Bath, England, United Kingdom


C.C. Holdings  wrote:
its amazing to think about, but the shutter speed can actually limits this, so that the sensor is not exposed to light (enough photons) long enough, even though light moves so fast.

I guess that's why a faster shutter speed results in a darker image then?

Blimey - this photography stuff is HARD!! big_smile

C.C. Holdings  wrote:
when you have a larger sensor, with more and deeper photosites, my understanding is that more photons are captured in a lesser amount of time.

If you mean larger photosites, then yes, they capture more photons which is why sensors with larger photosites have better high ISO performance all other things being equal. Of course, all other things are NOT equal though and a 5d3 will be a damn sight easier to use, more versatile and cheaper than almost any MF digital setup you can find.

As for the rest of what you said before about bigger sensors capturing light 'faster'... honestly, I've not heard such a pile of jumbled nonsense in years.

If you're concerned about getting shallow DOF then use a DOF calculator to see what differences sensor size and focal length make.

If you're concerned about bit depth then bear in mind that everything viewed on the web is likely to be a JPG which has, by definition, 8 bits of colour depth.

If you're concerned about better high ISO performance, AF performance and ease of use then a 5d3 will win hands down every time.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Jul 13 13 01:01 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Andrew Thomas Evans
Posts: 24,078
Toulon, Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur, France


C.C. Holdings  wrote:
anyway, thoughts?

If you have the money to go medium format, and you want to, then I'd say go for it. I can't really see how it's going to give that much less usable DOF, or in comparison with today's cameras how the file is going to be that much better. But, if you're set on it, have the funds, and think it will help, then do some more research and get a system.

You are going to run into some limits though with MF - they are going to be a little slower to use (as others have pointed out), they have lower iso's (as others have pointed out), they don't really auto focus as well (as others have pointed out), and if anything else their files are huge. Sure they can do color well, but I'm not sure that most clients would demand that or even notice.

Off topic, it's 2013, why are people still talking about larger photo sites meaning lower noise or better high iso? If this were really true the prices of those old Kodak FF cameras would be though the roof!



Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Jul 13 13 02:06 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Giacomo Cirrincioni
Posts: 21,146
New York, New York, US


I shoot MFD and if your priority is high iso performance, you are barking up the wrong tree.  Get the Nikon.

I love shooting MF but that has a lot more to do with the camera and how it fits into my shooting style than the sensor.  I handhold an RZ everyday and focus manually.  It's not for everyone.  The Pentax is not one I would consider.  I would either go Phase/Leaf or Hassy.
Jul 13 13 02:13 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Alien LiFe
Posts: 836
San Francisco, California, US


C.C. Holdings  wrote:
should I get a relatively expensive full frame, or a relatively cheap digital medium format?

I want slim depth of field (ie. things blurred pretty heavily except what I have in focus), ability to shoot in tight spaces at lower focal lengths (24mm - 50mm)

Medium format cameras don't go to high ISOs like newer DSLRs but I'll be using lights

anyway, thoughts?

for FF I would be looking at 5d Mark III
for MF I would be looking at Pentax 645D

Like you, I love the look of slim/shallow depth of field when doing portraiture and I'm currently shooting Nikon FF camera.
I did shoot with medium format & large format (almost) exclusively before when I still shoot film.
The look from larger negative (6x6 and 4x5) is breathtaking, you might need to experience it yourself to appreciate it.

Anyway, I've been saving money & looking for a used Mamiya/Phase One digital back. I want that medium Format look (almost 3D) and since I also use lights (strobes) I also want that high speed sync from leaf shutter lenses.
I'll trade speed of handling, lenses selection, AF speed & hi-ISO for a gorgeous look.

What kind of look ?
Check this one ... http://www.joeyl.com/blog/#!creating-an-indoor-blizzard


I think, MF digital is way more expensive the FF 35mm DSLR but they have a lot of cheap wide angle lenses ... smile
Oh ... and that Pentax 645D is only sync at 1/125 compare to 1/250 of 35mm DSLR.

My 2cents ...

Jul 13 13 03:09 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Faulty Focus
Posts: 696
Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada


That Italian Guy wrote:
Exactly how narrow do you want your DOF to be?

An 85 f/1.2 on a 5d3 is going to give you something like 1 inch at 6 feet and f/1.2...

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html


You can slice bread with the DOF on that combo.





Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Jul 13 13 03:20 pm  Link  Quote 
  Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers