File :-(, x, )
APS-C vs. Four Thirds for depth of field Anonymous
so i was talking to my friend the other day and something came up about how Four Thirds had two f/2.0 constant zooms

so my friend who is a bokeh faggot says like, zOMG awesome bokeh possiblities ^______^ like that in real life, what a faggot

anyway, i was like, the sensor is smaller so inherently there is MORE depth of field at same apertures and distances, just like how point-and-shoots have near infinite depth of field

then i go on dofmaster and punch in the numbers.

at 55mm on APS-C, at f/2.8, subject at 2 meters, the DOF is 0.14m
at 55mm on Four Thirds, at f/2.8, subject at 2 meters, the DOF is 0.11m

tried a few other combinations and Four Thirds kept having less depth of field, so less in focus, than APS-C

why is that? is it because i didn't change focal length?

Comment too long. Clickhereto view the full text.
>> Anonymous
>>292167
You're right, it's because of the focal length. You still won't get the same graphic results because the 55mm is working at 110mm (vs 35mm) on 4/3rds, while it's only around 85mm equivalent on APS-C
>> Anonymous
oh okay

so if i did match everything, distance, aperture and the frame, the Four Thirds would have more depth of field compared to APS-C
>> Anonymous
>>292175
If you matched magnification and aperture, the smaller sensor will have more depth of field. But f/2 on Four-Thirds (18 x 13.5mm) slightly edges out f/2.8 on Nikon DX (23.6 x 15.8mm); the equivalent would be f/2.5.

Sauce: bottom calculator on this page: http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm

Does it really matter? Fuck no.
>> Anonymous
i was fucking right

take that bokeh faggot
>> Anonymous
>>292183
f2.5 of a 250mm lens, not a 200mm lens, with your numbers.

Using that calculator, a 200mm lens at f2.0 on a fullframe digital or 35mm frame, 24mm x 36mm, would be THE SAME as an Olympus 4/3 sensor, 17.3 x 13.0mm, using a 100mm lens at f1.0, which would be quite impressive indeed.
>> Anonymous
Put another way, the 200mm f2.0 on the 4/3 sensor would be THE SAME as a 400mm f4 on a fullframe sensor, again impressive.
>> Anonymous
>>292261

Bullshit.
>> Anonymous
>>292262
I'm just using the calculator anonymous linked to. Maybe the math is programmed wrong. What do you think?