The author clearly knows a lot about photography, so I don't think this is a mistake in the article... When did "depth of field" begin meaning the opposite of what it traditionally meant in photography?
For example:
A nice side benefit of a larger sensor is a bit more depth of field. At a 13mm full-frame equivalent, you really can’t expect too much subject separation, but this shot shows some nice blurry figures in the background.
For as long as I can remember, depth of field referred to the range of distance that is in focus. So more depth of field would mean more things in focus and less subject separation. And "distance to subject" and "field of view" equal, a larger sensor results in less depth of field.
But in the article it is clearly the opposite. This isn't the only place I've noticed the change in meaning either.
For example: A nice side benefit of a larger sensor is a bit more depth of field. At a 13mm full-frame equivalent, you really can’t expect too much subject separation, but this shot shows some nice blurry figures in the background.
For as long as I can remember, depth of field referred to the range of distance that is in focus. So more depth of field would mean more things in focus and less subject separation. And "distance to subject" and "field of view" equal, a larger sensor results in less depth of field.
But in the article it is clearly the opposite. This isn't the only place I've noticed the change in meaning either.