Is that a brenizer shot? No way you can create such shallow DOF

>>2944787
Keep in mind that aperture isn't the only thing that affects depth of field. Focal length and focusing distance both play a role. At a very long focal length of 165mm (not a wide field of view by any stretch of the imagination) and a close focusing distance that's barely head and shoulders, this is completely plausible.

You wouldn't believe what a Canon 200mm f/1.8 or f/2 would do to a shot like this.

>>2944790

I own a D800 + 200 2.0 myself but never managed to create such a sharp transition from focused to completely blurry parts without bokeh stitching.

>>2944803
Well, I simply find that impossible to believe.

>>2944803
I had a nice separation on an APS-C camera and 70-200/2.8 at 100mm or so at f/4.

Totally plausible:

>http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm

>Dimensional Field of View Calculator
>Lens focal length (mm): 165mm
>Focal length multiplier: 1
>Distance to Subject: 1.5m
>FOV (horizontal) (meters): 0m 32.73cm

>Depth of Field Calculator:
>Focus/Subject distance: 1.5m
>Lens focal length (mm): 165mm
>Aperture: f/3.5
>Circle of confusion (mm): 0.019mm
>Depth of field: 0m 0.98cm ~ 1cm

>Nikon, that hard to believe.

File: caw2.jpg (26KB, 411x289px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 411x289px

>>2944787
Is that the Dad of the girl Jane on Breaking Bad???

>>2944787
You could do a shot like that with a 50mm 1.8 at the closest minimum focus distance.

>>2944899

No, it's Q.

>>2944900

lol

>>2944914
Holy shit, it is him! I didn't know a godlike entity can age. But at least the way he does is godlike entity-like.

>>2944787
3.5 at full frame creates a surprisingly shallow depth of field especially at 165mm, it's totally possible

>>2944900
You'd need closer to f1.0 to match a 165mm f3.5