Cheers, Lawrence

Thanks for the answer. Actually I am interested in the out of focus issues with the focus-recompose technic, especially when shooting with tiny DOC.

I thought that kind of shot is nearly impossible with the lock-recompose method … but your shot seems tack sharp despite the tiny DOC. How did you do that ?

Thanks

Guillaume

Center focus point and recompose. I usually start that way as it is the most sensitive AF point – and usually recommend this practice also. For subjects like this, I start to move the AF point off center if I start to take multiple / many shots of the same scene (with the same composition).

Very good review.

I was wondering which AF sensor did you use to get the shot of your dog with the 24mm lens at f/1.4 ? Central one with focus-lock-recompose or another one ?

Kind regards,

Guillaume

I definitely still use the 1D Mark III although it's role has been reduced to a more specialist one. Previously it was what I considered to be the best all-round Canon body, but the 5D Mark II is replacing it from that position for my uses. I'll write more on this in an upcoming post.

I plan to get up to Vancouver some time next year. Will check your galleries for photographic ideas and inspiration before I do!

Cheers,

Lawrence

Thanks for your thoughts on the 5D MKII.

Just wondering if you're still using the 1D MKIII? I have a 1D MKIII and would like to complement it with the 5D MKII.

btw, I'm up in Vancouver, BC, somewhat of a neighbour. You certainly picked a good time to move over (don't you just love the snow :-)

Love you sports work.

cheers,

Wikipedia puts it as follows:

"To a first approximation, DOF is inversely proportional to format size. More precisely, if photographs with the same final-image size are taken in two different camera formats at the same subject distance with the same field of view and f-number, the DOF is, to a first approximation, inversely proportional to the format size. Strictly speaking, this is true only when the subject distance is large in comparison with the focal length and small in comparison with the hyperfocal distance, for both formats, but it nonetheless is generally useful for comparing results obtained from different formats."

My way of describing it is as follows. The way it works is that if you put a 50 f/1.4 lens on a 40d, then you get the same effective view as a 80mm lens on a full frame sensor (50mm x 1.6x crop). However, it's not the same as a 80mm f/1.4 field of view… You have to multiply the f number also. (so in other words f/2.2ish).

So basically, to get the same depth of field as a 50mm f/1.4 on a full frame lens, you'd have to find a 28 – 35mm ish lens with a f number of around 1. Which does not exist.

Now you can of course change your position to change the field of view but is a different topic.

To contrast this (which makes the illustration easier), compact digital cameras have tiny sensors. That has a magnifying effect on their focal lengths but also dramatically increases the depth of field (i.e. less shallow). Great for landscapes, bad for portraits.

The short of this is … full frame = more shallow depth of field.