Matt Quinn wrote:Didn't know about the effect of the sensor size. Many thanks Chuck. I guess my Leica would not have worked well then. Matt
Your Leica would have worked fine but to get that degree of depth-of-field you'd have had to stop down considerably. It's really not the senor size, it's the focal length. The smaller the sensor the shorter the "normal" focal length, which is usually approximately equal to the diagonal of the sensor. A so-called "full-frame" sensor is essentially the same size as a 35mm negative, 24 x 36mm, with a diagonal of ~50mm. That's why the "normal" focal length on a full frame is usually about 50mm, in a range of, oh, 40 to 60mm. Shorter focal lengths have greater apparent depth of field, and without going all techie, "depth of field" is defined as the area of apparent
sharpness in front of and behind the actual plane of sharpest focus. Technically it's an illusion. It's affected by focal length, aperture, and distance, but very generally the smaller the sensor the shorter the focal lengths and the greater the apparent DOF. That's why the downside of all that astonishing DOF is that it's so hard to get anything like bokeh with a cell phone. I started and stayed with small sensor compacts, and control of DOF is difficult with them, but not as tough as a cell phone. My primary now is a 1" sensor Sony, and it's easier to get decent bokeh with it, but still harder than a larger sensor.