In my previous post I described how easy it is to calculate apertures to get equivalent depth of field on different formats. I presented there all the equations needed for DoF calculation, but left the actual “paperwork” to you.

In this post I’ll do these calculations for those of you who did not do the homework ðŸ˜‰

Our goal is to get the same amount of depth of field for two setups. Object distance is also the same, so we can simply work with hyperfocal distances.

\(H \approx \dfrac{f_F^2}{N_F c_F} \approx \dfrac {f_C^2}{N_C c_C} \)

Where the index \(F\) denotes full frame and the \(C\) index denotes crop sensor cameras.

We also know how the required full frame and crop factor focal lengths relate (\(X\) denotes the crop factor), so:

\(\dfrac{X^2 f_C^2}{N_F c_F} \approx \dfrac{f_C^2}{N_C c_C} \)

Now let’s see how the circle of confusion changes with the format. Having the exact same print dimensions, magnification will be higher for smaller formats.

\(m_C = X m_F \)

Viewing distance and your eye’s resolution are also the same, so:

\(c_C = \dfrac{\tan (\frac{\pi}{180 R_e}) D_v}{X m_F} \)

\(X c_C = \dfrac{\tan (\frac{\pi}{180 R_e}) D_v}{m_F} = c_F \)

To summarize what we have:

\(\dfrac{X^2 f_C^2}{N_F X c_C} \approx \dfrac{f_C^2}{N_C c_C} \)

Which after simplification leads to:

\(\dfrac{X}{N_F} \approx \dfrac{1}{N_C} \)

That is, we arrive to the result:

\(X N_C \approx N_F \text{.} \)

### Related

**Making "The First Flower" with Kuuvik Capture**

As I told you in the introduction of Kuuvik Capture, I used the software yesterday for shooting quasi-macros with the Ca...

**Focus Stacking with the Otus 1.4/28**

Last weekend I had a little time to play with the Otus 1.4/28. I was at Lake Tisza, but the light was suboptimal to put ...

**Kuuvik Capture 3.2 : The Dual Histogram**

The very first Kuuvik Capture release introduced RAW histograms in an attempt to provide a tool for judging exposure mor...