MF- More shallower depth of field.

<blockquote>

<p>Here's an interesting explanation of DOF with pictures between different lenses. I won't volunteer if its answers the OP's question. I'll let the experts here do that. Alan.<br>

<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Alan, another fine link. But it is not relevant to the OP's question, because the exercise that Michael Reichmann undertook was a "keep the same camera format, move the camera with respect to the main subject" type. That doesn't deliver "identical pictures". What we're talking about here is a "change the camera format, keep the camera at exactly the same position" comparison.</p>

<p>I think a lot of the aggro in this thread has been because various people have been describing these (and other) very different scenarios, all the while thinking that they were discussing the <em>same </em>thing!</p>

<p>My last post on this. <br>

I'm still amazed nobody with a dissenting opinion has gone and simply done a test. You can do it with 2 different format digital SLRs, or like me with one SLR but cropping to get the same view from 2 different focal length lenses, or with 2 different film cameras, or any combination of the above.<br>

You'll prove the truth to yourself, so why not do it?<br>

My test also showed this, which I posted....2 different lenses, but cropping to get the exact same image area......this simulates the situation perfectly.<br>

Just do it guys, you'll see that <strong>longer lenses used from the same point capturing the same width of view shot at the same aperture will have less sharpness in the out of focus areas than shorter lenses. </strong><br>

Just do it! Why would you prefer to sit on your opinion without testing if it's really right or not?</p>

<p>If we all knew the truth, we wouldn't be able to argue. Where's the fun in that?</p>

I guess, no, i'm sure you will never learn. Ah, well...!

<blockquote>

<p>A 4/3 25mm f/2.8 takes the same photo as a 50mm f/5.6 on FF and 100mm f/11 on 6x7. </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I can always count on PNet contributors for a a good laugh. I'll bet the same folks are on some car forum claiming a Suburban is the same as a Mini Clubman.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A 4/3 25mm f/2.8 takes the same photo as a 50mm f/5.6 on FF and 100mm f/11 on 6x7.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I can always count on PNet contributors for a a good laugh. I'll bet the same folks are on some car forum claiming a Suburban is the same as a Mini Clubman.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dennis, how could you overlook the context of his remark, indeed of this whole thread? Gregory clearly meant the same photo <em>in terms of DOF. </em>Why didn't you quote his full paragraph?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A 4/3 25mm f/2.8 takes the same photo as a 50mm f/5.6 on FF and 100mm f/11 on 6x7. After all, they all have the same absolute aperture size, so DOF will be the same when framed identically (same subject distance).</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em> </em>And he was quite correct too. There's nothing to laugh at there.</p>