ok, zdej pa sm še to.
glih isto debato sem našel tukaj in enako nakladanje in na konc strinjanje, da ima vsak prav in narobe hkrati.
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=10934
ampak, če hočemo primerjat, moremo primerjat rezultat.
se pravi, dva različne velika tipala in temu primerna objektiva, da dosežemo enak kot vidnega polja na sliki.
če to pomeni 50mm goriščnice na enem objektivu in 5 mm na drugem, zakaj pa ne? razdalja do predmeta in zaslonka je enaka pr obeh.
po mojih izkušnjah bo dof (ali ostri del slike, kakorkoli že hočete to oklicat, kr kolk vidim, je kr velik kreg, kaj dof sploh je) na večjem senzorju pač manjši, če se pa motim, pa naj bo, priznam napako in ne bom več težil.
ta je bil recimo podobnih misli (pa še nekdo par postov nižje) kot jst, čeprav se ne čist v vsem strinjam:
Anon E Mouse is right that the issue of degree of enlargement affects depth of field. It is a little confusing in that the principle works in what you would think is the wrong direction. For example, small formats have to be enlarged more to reach a given print size, so they in theory would have less depth of field (more enlargement = less depth of field).
However, having to use a longer focal length lens to achieve an equivalent angular field of view has a much larger effect, so the net result is that larger formats have functionally less depth of field at comparable angular fields of view, focus distance, and aperture.
For a sense of the scale of the issue, here are some rough guidelines to think about in terms of depth of field.
A 1.6 crop camera has roughly 1 1/3 stop more depth of field than a full frame camera. (ie. f/1.8 on 20D with 50mm lens = ~f/2.8 on 5D with 80mm lens).
A 35mm full frame camera has about 4 1/2 stops more depth of field than a 4x5 camera. (ie. f/1.4 on 5D with 35mm lens = ~f/6.4 on 4x5 with 135mm lens)