FF and APS-C comparison: For fun, here are two images (which I will need to send separately): --taken with the same Canon EF lens at 200mm on a Canon full frame (FF) and on a APS-C...

bcrawf

For fun, here are two images (which I will need to send separately):
--taken with the same Canon EF lens at 200mm on a Canon full frame (FF) and on a APS-C 1.6-crop sensor (a Canon 7D) camera,
--both at f/11 (and the same ISO),
--both at the same position 15 ft. (or a few inches less) from the target,
--both focused and centered on the yardstick at its 24-inch mark
--both shown here uncropped.

You will see two nearer "targets" at the left side, about 11 inches apart, about 41 and 52 inches, respectively from the yardstick/newspaper target.

This is rather quick and dirty, but I think it is a good rough showing that the depth of field is the same in both cases and that the image from the smaller sensor is essentially a "cutout" portion of what appears on the FF sensor. Of course, both images "spread" to occupy the same screen space as we look at them, but readers can shrink the image from the APS-C sensor to make the ruler marks match in the two images to see the effect.

(Download)

lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.

bcrawf wrote:

For fun, here are two images (which I will need to send separately) ...
This is rather quick and dirty, but I think it is a good rough showing that ...

I'm intrigued, but when are you going to post the second image? Next month? Also, wrt "quick and dirty," I'm uncertain whether sending them separately, as opposed to sending them simultaneously, may affect the comparison. Good Luck.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

I have only one question??!!
Has Michigan had its water problem solved yet?!?! :lol:
SS

bcrawf

lev29 wrote:

I'm intrigued, but when are you going to post the second image? Next month? Also, wrt "quick and dirty," I'm uncertain whether sending them separately, as opposed to sending them simultaneously, may affect the comparison. Good Luck.

They are up now. I want to note that I found I had to go back and save the second one (the FF) at the "10" quality level of JPEG, because it would not upload at the larger size it had as a "12."

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Great Experiment.Thanks for sharing your results on Depth Of Field. You added to my knowledge. Thanks!

bcrawf wrote:

For fun, here are two images (which I will need to... (show quote)

lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.

bcrawf wrote:

They are up now. I want to note that I found I had to go back and save the second one (the FF) at the "10" quality level of JPEG, because it would not upload at the larger size it had as a "12."

Uh-oh! Are you stating that the two images were sent to the Hog at different JPEG quality levels? Ya know, my real profession was as a Radiologist. I'm not going to bother reviewing them till you send comparison images with ONLY the changes you initially stipulated. Otherwise, "quick and dirty" becomes "quick but worthless."

Sorry to be picky, but I just did a "quick and dirty" glance of your submitted pair. You haven't even scaled them to the same size. However, I don't know just how difficult that is to achieve on this site.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

bcrawf wrote:

For fun, here are two images (which I will need to... (show quote)

There is a flaw in you comparison: Both at 15'; not the same images.

Had you moved the full frame camera closer to get the same size image the DOF would be shallower.

FF has less DOF that Crop at the same image size.

The DOF calculators assume you know the difference.

jim quist Loc: Missouri

agree with joer

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

bcrawf wrote:

For fun, here are two images

How else do you get your fun? Just interested.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

unless our membership is mostly made up of pros and advanced amateurs, it's no big deal for most of us.. just something to make a fuss over now and then.

Revet Loc: Fairview Park, Ohio

joer wrote:

There is a flaw in you comparison: Both at 15'; not the same images.

Had you moved the full frame camera closer to get the same size image the DOF would be shallower.

FF has less DOF that Crop at the same image size.

The DOF calculators assume you know the difference.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

SharpShooter wrote:

I have only one question??!!
Has Michigan had its water problem solved yet?!?! :lol:
SS

No - tomorrow afternoon, 3:00 PM. This problem will go one forever, just like lead.

bcrawf

joer wrote:

There is a flaw in you comparison: Both at 15'; not the same images.

Had you moved the full frame camera closer to get the same size image the DOF would be shallower.

FF has less DOF that Crop at the same image size.

The DOF calculators assume you know the difference.

That is not a flaw--it is a basic fact of DOF. I was not doing that comparison, only the one I described.

bcrawf

lev29 wrote:

Uh-oh! Are you stating that the two images were se... (show quote)

Oh, dear, I guess you miss out this time. Yes, the FF image had to be rendered to UHH at the "10" quality level of JPEG, but the comparison I was presenting was concerned with DOF, not with resolution. I think the JPEG difference does not affect the DOF comparison of those images. (The two cameras differ in MP resolution, by the way, but at the scale of these images here, a DOF comparison is still useful.)

CO

joer wrote:

There is a flaw in you comparison: Both at 15'; not the same images.

Had you moved the full frame camera closer to get the same size image the DOF would be shallower.

FF has less DOF that Crop at the same image size.

The DOF calculators assume you know the difference.

This is correct. When using lenses that result in the same field of view such as 24mm on cropped sensor and 35mm on full frame the cropped sensor camera will give more depth of field when the cameras are set on same aperture.

Photographer Neil van Niekirk did an excellent article on the subject here:
http://neilvn.com/tangents/full-frame-vs-crop-sensor-cameras-comparison-depth-of-field/