• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / Comparing blur circles across formats and sensors

Comparing blur circles across formats and sensors

May 4, 2019 JimK 2 Comments

This is a continuation of a series of posts about blur management for landscape photography. The series starts here.

I’ve been asked to compare blur circle sizes between simulated full frame (24×36 mm, aka FF) and 33×44 mm sensors. I picked the Nikon Z7 and the Fuji GFX 50x as the cameras, 30 meters and the subject distance, 30 mm for the Z7 lens, and 40 mm for the GFX lens, which gives the same vertical angle of view.

First, the Z7:

And now the GFX:

 

The GFX has higher resolution, partly because of its higher pixel count in the vertical direction, but also thanks to the smaller-than-normal microlenses that it employs.

To get to equivalent f-stops, we need to stop the GFX down about a stop more than a lens on the Z7. Here’s what we’d get at f/4 on the Z7 and f/5.6 on the GFX 50x:

The GFX is marginally sharper, and the falloff of sharpness as you move away from the focal point is a bit faster.

As we stop down, these differences diminish, but don’t go away:

 

 

 

The Last Word

← Cost functions for optimal blur management Real and approximated blur profiles →

Comments

  1. Erik Kaffehr says

    May 7, 2019 at 11:02 am

    Hi Jim,

    Nice job! If you look at the last plot at f/8 resp f/11 how much depends on pixel aperture?

    Thanks for your efforts!

    Reply
    • JimK says

      May 7, 2019 at 11:17 am

      At f/11, the defocus blur will be greater, and the pixel aperture will have less effect. The combining of defocus blur with the other blur mechanisms does not depend on whether the defocus blur comes from distance or f-stop, but only on the size of the CoC.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.