![]() So while you’ll get a different look, certainly you can nicely blur the background in both cases. According to a nice little depth of field calculator app on my iPhone (Simple DoF), for the lens and aperture values I mention here, on the MFT camera the depth of field is 12” at a distance of 10 feet, and 3.8” on the full frame. I think this argument is often overdone though. If you are shooting portraits or certain other subjects this can be a good thing. ![]() So for example a 100mm lens on a full frame camera at f/2.8 has a narrower depth of field than a 50mm lens (100mm equivalent) lens on a micro four thirds (MFT) camera does at f/2.8. One of the comments made by full frame shooters is that they prefer the narrower depth of field that you get with an equivalent lens on a full frame camera. Your new photography philosophy should be ‘less is more'”. ![]() He says “The idea that bigger is better has come and gone. He makes several of the same points that I did, and expands on various arguments in favor of MFT cameras. My previous post on why I think full frame cameras will die out and be replaced by smaller sensor devices such as Micro Four Thirds (MFT) cameras spurred quite a few comments on Facebook, and coincidentally I have come across a few other articles on the same topic in the past few days, so I thought I would add a few more thoughts in this post.įirst, I came across this post at Petapixel by Chris Corradino, entitled “The Battle is Over: My Micro 4/3 Camera Outsold my Full-Frame DSLR”.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |