Random photo thread v3.0

from Wikipedia
Depth of focus vs depth of field

While the phrase depth of focus was historically used, and is sometimes still used, to mean depth of field, in modern times it is more often reserved for the image-side depth. Depth of field is a measurement of depth of acceptable sharpness in the object space, or subject space.

Depth of focus, however, is a measurement of how much distance exists behind the lens wherein the film plane will remain sharply in focus. It can be viewed as the flip side of depth of field, occurring on the opposite side of the lens.

Where depth of field often can be measured in macroscopic units such as meters and feet, depth of focus is typically measured in microscopic units such as fractions of a millimeter or thousandths of an inch.

The same factors that determine depth of field also determine depth of focus, but these factors can have different effects than they have in depth of field. Both depth of field and depth of focus increase with smaller apertures. For distant subjects (beyond macro range), depth of focus is relatively insensitive to focal length and subject distance, for a fixed f-number. In the macro region, depth of focus increases with longer focal length or closer subject distance, while depth of field decreases.

digitally-yours wrote: »

Same subject different prespective

mehfesto2 wrote: »

? Im considering Bray, Greystones, Skerries, etc.

ttcomet wrote: »

Animalrights the only thing I can think of is that the 1.4 will have a much smaller DOF then the f4 assuming you are using both wide open. That will deffinitely reduce your keeper rate.