Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Jim Laurel <jplaurel@nwlink.com> wrote: > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe depth of field is > related to focal length and aperture size alone. It's also related to the degree of magnification of the print, assumed viewing distance and the acceptable size of the circle of confusion. > The depth of field of a 25mm lens is the same regardless of > the size of the film or digital sensor. But to get the same size print from a small sensor you need to enlarge the image more, making the circle of confusion for each point on the image larger. > Back in the 50s ... Kodachrome 25 was the best available at > the time. Kodachrome 25 didn't come along until the 1970s. Before that it was Kodachrome (ASA 8?) and then Kodachrome II (ASA 25). > What's the point? I guess it's the obvious one, that imaging > technology tends to create a dominant aesthetic. Has always been so. 35mm cameras changed the look of photojournalism, for example. Doug Herr Birdman of Sacramento http://www.wildlightphoto.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html