Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="J-see" data-source="post: 422868" data-attributes="member: 31330">Wayne, let's quit talking about DoF as an abstract thing and put it into real world numbers.Here's the reality:In macro at 1:1 when I use f/8 with my cam I have 0.5mm DOF -if I remember well. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)At f/16 I double that and again double that at f/32. Thus at f/32 I have a whopping 2mm.Now let's convert that to sensor pixels (even when my pixels don't really go into that direction). 0.5mm would be 80 pixels. 2mm would be 320 pixels. ON 6000.That's the sad reality.The truth is that the moment our subject in macro is large enough for us to distinguish its features with the naked eye, it is most likely too large for any DoF we can squeeze out of our cam.DoF in normal photography is a whole different matter than DoF in macro where we talk about ranges that minuscule it is almost laughable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="J-see, post: 422868, member: 31330"] Wayne, let's quit talking about DoF as an abstract thing and put it into real world numbers. Here's the reality: In macro at 1:1 when I use f/8 with my cam I have 0.5mm DOF -if I remember well. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) At f/16 I double that and again double that at f/32. Thus at f/32 I have a whopping 2mm. Now let's convert that to sensor pixels (even when my pixels don't really go into that direction). 0.5mm would be 80 pixels. 2mm would be 320 pixels. ON 6000. That's the sad reality. The truth is that the moment our subject in macro is large enough for us to distinguish its features with the naked eye, it is most likely too large for any DoF we can squeeze out of our cam. DoF in normal photography is a whole different matter than DoF in macro where we talk about ranges that minuscule it is almost laughable. [/QUOTE]

Verification