Digital Camera Dilema - Depth of field - NOT

[Clay Taylor]

Paul -

    I'm surprised at you - all your postings usually rely heavily on
scientific methodology (BT Corn, West Nile spraying, etc....) and yet you
show us ONE photo, with no exposure or technical data, and then you want us
to believe that the photo is superior to WHAT 35mm example?

    Please remember the point of my original post - the focal length of the
lens and the format size of the sensor (whether film or CCD) are not the
important factors in depth of field - the magnification of the image and the
aperture (f/stop) of the lens are.

Clay Taylor
Moodus, CT
ctaylor at att.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Cherubini" <monarch at saber.net>
To: <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: Digital Camera Dilema - Depth of field - NOT


> Clay Taylor wrote:
>
> >  I am only jumping in here to dispel the depth of field myth - the
> > digital discussion is VERY fascinating.
>
> I've found the depth of field I can get with a digital
> camera (Olympus C-3000 $499.00) is
> far greater than with a 35mm camera.  Here is an example:
> http://www.saber.net/~monarch/whitespeciosa.jpg
>
> Paul Cherubini
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
>


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl