Sony a7 (and a7R)

The long-anticipated Sony a7 and a7R have been called the cameras of the year by some. I was an early fanboy, but does the a7 live up to the hype and my expectations?

The a7 and a7R are the first full-frame, mirrorless, autofocusing interchangeable-lens cameras. Together, they’re strong competitors for the Leica 240 and the Nikon D800E. But the native lens selection is meager. The sweet spot may be to combine the new Sonys with third-party lenses.
Continue reading

Sony RX1R


In episode #5 of All About the Gear, Frederick Van Johnson and I discuss the Sony RX1R.


The RX1R is an awesome little camera, which I very quickly learned to love. After the Leica M-series, it’s the second full-frame mirrorless digital camera on the market. Should you rush out and buy one? No, because I think Sony is about to release even better options. Let’s start with the basics.

Continue reading

How Does Sensor Size Affect Depth-of-Field?

Earlier today, Frederick Van Johnson and I recorded a pilot for a new series from This Week in Photo. The series is tentatively called All About the Gear and the pilot episode is The Olympus OM-D vs Sony NEX 7 – Is Mirrorless More, or Less?

In the show I made the statement (at about the 8:00 mark) to the effect that the depth-of-field on a micro four-thirds (MFT) camera at a given aperture (say f/4) would be the equivalent of f/8 on a crop-sensor camera like the Sony NEX-7. What I should have said was that it would have been the equivalent of f/8 on a full-frame (FF) body. That’s what happens when you try to talk faster than your brain can operate.

In any case, in the YouTube comments, Jamie MacDonald challenged that statement, saying “f/1.8 is f/1.8 It is ‘sensor agnostic’ if you will.” Jamie is technically correct and I was taking a shortcut for the benefit of simplicity, for which I apologize. However this continues to be a much misunderstood issue, which I think deserves a more complete explanation.

Imagine you’re taking a picture of a tree with two cameras, both equipped with zoom lenses, from the same location. One is an MFT and the other is FF. Let’s assume both are set to an aperture of f/4. You compose your shot on the MFT camera and it turns out to  require a focal length of 45mm. Now you compose the exact same shot on the FF camera. The tree is the same size (in terms of percentage of frame height) in both viewfinders. If you check the focal length on the FF camera, you’ll see it’s set to about 90mm. Same shot. Same aperture. Different focal lengths.

Now go home and look at both images. You’ll see that the image from the MFT camera has a much greater depth-of-field, while the one from the FF has much more boken, or blurring as you get away from the in-focus area of the image. Why, because of the difference in real focal length as opposed to equivalent focal length. (We say that 45mm on the MFT camera is the full-frame equivalent of 90mm because of the size of object in the frame from the same distance.)

As Jamie correctly points out, this is not actually due to the aperture, since it’s the same in both cases. But here’s the thing: If instead of shooting the FF image at f/4, you use f/8, now you would find the depth-of-field in the resulting images was nearly identical.

The superzoom on my big Nikons is 28-300mm. An equivalent superzoom on an MFT camera is 14-150mm. Those lens/camera combinations give me the same image-area range. I most-often shoot in aperture-priority mode, so with my FF camera I might decide to use f/11 to give me the desired depth-of-field for a particular shot. In order to get the same depth-of-field using the MFT camera, I need to set it to f/5.6.

So what does this mean in practice? When using lenses of equivalent focal lengths such as the kit zooms on each, to get the same depth-of-field as a full-frame camera, you need to use an aperture about two stops wider on an MFT camera and about one stop wider on an APS-C crop-sensor camera.

Hope that helps.

And please: give us feedback on the new show. Here, on the TWiP blog or on the YouTube channel.