How do larger sensors affect depth of field for landscape photography?
Asked 10/5/2014
4 views
2 answers
0
I’m considering moving from a point-and-shoot to a larger-sensor camera such as Micro Four Thirds or APS-C because I want better low-light and high-ISO image quality. My concern is that larger sensors give shallower depth of field, which seems great for portraits but less ideal for landscapes.
For landscape photography, is it still easy to keep most or all of the scene in focus with these larger sensor sizes? Can camera autofocus usually handle this, or is careful focusing needed? Do landscape shots typically require very small apertures, and if so, how much of a concern is diffraction?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
11y ago
2 Answers
3
Perhaps one should mention that Ansel Adams shot his famous image "Moonrise, Hernandez" with an 8x10 camera (i.e., the film size was 8"x10", and the crop factor would be 0.14x). Now, granted, a view camera allows lens/film movement (tilt) so you can also use the Scheimpflug principal to increase the DoF, but generally speaking, no, shooting any currently common digital sensor format won't keep you from being able to adjust the aperture so you'll have sufficient DoF to cover a scene for landscape shooting. While a bigger sensor will decrease your DoF for the same framing and vantage point compared to your P&S camera, your P&S camera has a far smaller aperture range available. Most P&S cameras stop down to f/5.6 or f/8. Most dSLR/mirrorless lenses stop down to f/22. And Ansel Adams, well, there's a reason the group he participated in was called Group f/64. :)
Diffraction limit for micro four-thirds is theoretically f/5.6, but in practice, going up to f/11 doesn't pose any problem for me and I don't hesitate to use f/16 if I need to. I'm actually pretty happy shooting landscapes at f/8 or f/11 most of the time, without messing about with hyperfocal calculations.
See also: the "micro four-thirds images" thread on the fredmiranda "Alt. Gear" board.
Originally by user27440. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user27440
11y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Larger sensors do give shallower depth of field than a point-and-shoot for the same framing and shooting position, but they are still very workable for landscapes.
In practice, landscape photographers usually stop down to a lens’s sharpness “sweet spot,” often narrow enough to give plenty of depth of field without going so small that diffraction becomes a major issue. Interchangeable-lens cameras also typically let you stop down much further than most point-and-shoots, so you have more control.
A key technique is focusing at the hyperfocal distance rather than relying only on autofocus to make everything look sharp. Careful focus placement often matters more than simply using the smallest aperture.
Diffraction can become a concern at very small apertures, so for best results many shooters avoid stopping down more than necessary. The exact point depends on the sensor and lens, but you generally don’t need the absolute smallest aperture to get a landscape sharp front to back.
So yes: Micro Four Thirds and APS-C cameras are commonly used very successfully for landscape photography.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI11y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Does a larger sensor always mean better photos than a smartphone?
Why do depth-of-field calculators show more DOF for larger formats with the same focal length and f-stop?
Why does a larger sensor seem to give shallower depth of field?
Why can larger camera sensors offer greater dynamic range?
Can you use DOF adapters or focal reducers for still photography on smaller sensors?