Digital BW, The Print

I have no problem getting shallow dof with the 20D and
my 28-70 2.8. A 501.4 would be amazing. 

Guy
--- "Doug I." <puzzolente@...> wrote:
> Seth,
> I understand what you're saying, but the smaller
> sensor does 
> *effectively* translate to greater DOF in terms of
> practical use. And 
> that's a double-edged sword. If I want to fill my
> frame with someone's 
> face I can whip out my 100mm with film and work from
> x distance with y 
> DOF. To get the same crop with a smaller digital
> sensor I will have to 
> use a shorter focal length or move back--both
> situations that produce 
> greater DOF. Right?
> 
> As someone who makes most of his money shooting
> candid, available light 
> (often indoor), shallow DOF kid portraits on Ilford
> Delta 3200, this 
> has been the deal breaker for me in terms of fully
> making the leap to 
> digital. The 2 things I need--low noise in really
> low light and often 
> super-shallow DOF in fairly close quarters--just
> aren't there yet.
> 
> So--while a 20D is perfect for just about everything
> else I shoot, as a 
> part-timer I can't justify the $$$ for the 1Ds II I
> really need for 
> DOF/working distance reasons. And as awesome as that
> camera is, it 
> still is unable to match film at ISO 3200
> (admittedly a niche market, 
> but unfortunately MY niche market ;-).
> 
> Doug
> 
> >  Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:50:26 -0500
> >    From: "Seth" <seth@...>
> > Subject: RE: Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital
> cameras [was 
> > www.OpenRAW.org needs
> >
> > Clayton-
> >
> > DOF has nothing to do with sensor size.  A 200mm
> lens on a full frame 
> > has a
> > given DOF.  If you put it on a sensor with a 1.5
> factor it now has a 
> > 300mm
> > EFFECTIVE focal length.  It still is a 200mm lens
> and maintains THAT 
> > DOF.
> > Just ONE of the advantages of using a smaller
> sensor --if everything 
> > else is
> > equal.  Since it also has the SAME f/stop you gain
> that.  No need to 
> > use an
> > extender or a longer, heavier lens.
> >
> > Seth
> >
> > ==-----Original Message-----
> > ==
> > ==I'm asking because I look forward to moving to a
> larger
> > ==sensor camera someday, but have gotten terribly
> spoiled by
> > ==the Pro-1's DOF (2/3 sensor). I'm wondering what
> I'd be
> > ==giving up. When I was in DVNP in January I used
> mostly f/5.6
> > ==and speeds were in the 1/400 to 1/600 range at
> ISO 50. There
> > ==were no DOF limitations, everything was tack
> sharp and no
> > ==blurry flora even though there was a good
> breeze. It was an
> > ==absolute delight to work that way.
> 
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Make Yahoo! your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs