Misunderstood/Misled on Depth of Field?

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Just a note... Shooting with the Scarlet 8x will wield DOF similar to shooting with the GH1/2 with the 14-140 lens.

Which is great not just for close-ups but also for medium shots:

 

[Subhadip Sen]

Absolutely. But, I'm also wondering how the fixed will be for very deep DOF and how diffraction on the smaller sensor will play a part. My thinking is that for 95% of what I do, the fixed will be fine. But, if I need to shoot very deep with lots of detail and have the budget, then renting an Epic, and presuming I already have the other component parts, then I would be able to shoot at a smaller equivalent aperture, while still retaining detail.

It's all guess work until we know how the fixed will perform.

It really depends on how you want your deep DOF. In most cases, when I think of deep focus, I think of very wide shots with lot of detail with a very deep mise-en-scene. However, you could also have the telephoto deep focus, the Kurosawa, in which case you would really need a tiny aperture.

But I am just thinking - 25mm, f/5.6 on 2/3" or 55mm, f/12 on S35 (not exact equivalents, just guidelines) - the actual aperture diameter - the ultimate guide for depth of field, and also, diffraction, would be the same. In which case, the risk of diffraction would be the same regardless of sensor size, no? Assuming the lenses are of the same optical quality. (I am sure the Scarlet fixed has a quality lens) On the positive side, the Scarlet will need less light to get to the same depth of field! So for "long lens, deep focus", the Scarlet seems like the better option versus Epic.

As for very wide, highly detailed shots, the Epic's resolution could be necessary. (The same reason why Tati shot Playtime on 70mm)

Also, thank you Pietro for illustrating what we have been talking about!

 

[Lee Saxon]

Well I just bought an Angenieux 15 1.3, so I'm happy now