Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,566   Posts: 1,545,404   Online: 1060
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36
  1. #11
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,615
    That abusing thing may have two sides:
    Making exposures where ones technique does not fit the matter (whatever that means...)
    Or selecting only subjects where ones technique fits.

  2. #12
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeofus View Post
    Is this really the case? I know of no medium or large format lens comparable (in terms of DOF) to the 50 F/1.0 or the 85 F/1.2 for "miniature format" as you call it. While it may be more difficult to get everything in focus with MF/LF, insanely shallow DOF may actually be more feasible with 35mm cameras.
    Yes, it really the case. Because of the larger film area "normal" on my 8x10 for example, is around 300mm, and thus I have 300mm DoF at the same distance that I would use a 50mm for with 135. It takes more than a stop or two to make that up, hence part of the usefulness of swings and tilts.

  3. #13
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,653
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by JBrunner View Post
    Yes, it really the case. Because of the larger film area "normal" on my 8x10 for example, is around 300mm, and thus I have 300mm DoF at the same distance that I would use a 50mm for with 135. It takes more than a stop or two to make that up, hence part of the usefulness of swings and tilts.
    If you look here, you'll find the equation: c = m*A*|S2-S1|/S2, with c being the circle of confusion in the focal plane (i.e. the film plane), m being the magnification, A being the diameter of the aperture, S2 the distance in perfect focus and S1 being the object distance.

    What does this mean: for equal subject framing and equal DOF impression on the final print you keep c/m constant. The larger the film, the larger the circles of confusion may become before a section looks blurry, but at the same time the larger the magnification m becomes. After all is said and done, only the aperture diameter determines your DOF. And that's exactly where the myth comes from that long focal length lenses or large format have narrow DOF: it's easy to have A=1mm with a 14mm lens (just dial in F/14), but next to impossible to find a 300mm lens with that aperture diameter.

    When it comes to really narrow DOF, 35mm cameras rule at the moment. You get normal lenses with A=50mm, portrait focal legths (85, 135mm) with A=70mm, and longer focal lengths with A>100mm, even A>150mm. No medium or large format camera can offer you that. Your 8x10" normal focal length lens may be f=300mm, but with F/8 you get A=37.5mm, which is nice but not extraordinary.

    All you have with large format is DOF too thin for reasonable hyper focal distances, that's why you need camera movements to get a landscape shot in focus, where 35mm cameras would just stop down a little.

  4. #14
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,290
    Images
    20
    Anyone who actually shoots 35mm, medium, and large format knows that really, no foolin', no myth, even without tilts and shifts, it's easier to do short DOF with a larger format and ordinary lenses.

    Running some numbers through f/calc (available from http://fcalc.net), which is a handy program for calculations like these with all the formulas included in the help screens, I get a DOF range of slightly less then a three inches using a 300mm lens at f:8 on an 8x10" camera (acceptable CoC=0.188022mm) with a subject distance of six feet. I get a DOF range of slightly more than a three inches using a 50mm lens at f:1.0 on a 35mm camera (acceptable CoC=0.02501mm) at the same subject distance, which would be typical for a portrait. So if we call that even, you need an exotic f:1.0 wide open lens on a 35mm camera to do what you can do with a typical modern plasmat made some time since the 1970s (300mm/5.6) on an 8x10" camera stopped down one stop. Tessars in that range would usually be 300mm/4.5, and a 12" Dagor is f:6.8.
    Last edited by David A. Goldfarb; 01-21-2010 at 11:15 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Corrected mistated values.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  5. #15
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,653
    Images
    10
    Funny thing is dofmaster comes to different conclusions: at 2 meters distance the 300/8 has a DOF of 0.12m, where the 50/1.0 would have only 0.09m. At a distance of 6 feet I get 0.33ft vs. 0.26ft. While the 50/1.0 may be a freak lens, a 50 F/1.2 is not, and is still comparable to the 300 F/8 on 8x10 cameras. And that's only at normal focal lengths. Once you compare a 200/2.0 or a 600F/4 to the lens lineup for MF/GF, you blow anything MF/GF out of the water.

    The reason for this is not any inherent superiority of 35mm cameras. It's just that due to high market volume a lot more research effort is put into these small format lenses, providing us with insane lens designs. Look at the complexity in some of the newer 35mm lenses!

  6. #16
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,290
    Images
    20
    Sorry, I misread the f/calc result. That should be a quarter of a foot or about three inches, rather than a quarter inch. I've corrected the post above.

    Also DOFmaster is rounding the 8x10" CoC value (.2) more than 35mm CoC (.03) just following the normal rounding conventions, but that aside, the most common 300mm lenses for 8x10" aren't wide open at f:8, so at f:8, there is usually room to spare. The exceptions would be Artar and process type lenses or compact lenses like the Fujinon C, which are usually around f:9. Most 50mm lenses for 35mm cameras are f:1.4 or f:1.8, so even if an f:1.2 isn't quite as exotic as an f:1.0, they're still pretty unusual.
    Last edited by David A. Goldfarb; 01-21-2010 at 11:16 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  7. #17
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,653
    Images
    10
    F/1.2 is not all that unusual in a Canon gear bag and would be even more commonly seen if the 50L didn't suffer from its dreaded and much written about focus shift issues. Ok, let's settle this with: GF gets smaller DOF in the normal to wide range, 35mm format rules the DOF arena in the longer focal length range.

  8. #18
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,290
    Images
    20
    Maybe, but only because there are no vaguely equivalent long lenses as you go up in format, and they get pretty impractical to work with. The long end of 35mm or 8x10" is around 1200mm--Canon tele, Nikon tele for 8x10", and then there are a few monster process lenses longer than that.
    Last edited by David A. Goldfarb; 01-21-2010 at 11:56 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  9. #19
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeofus View Post
    If you look here, you'll find the equation: c = m*A*|S2-S1|/S2, with c being the circle of confusion in the focal plane (i.e. the film plane), m being the magnification, A being the diameter of the aperture, S2 the distance in perfect focus and S1 being the object distance.

    What does this mean: for equal subject framing and equal DOF impression on the final print you keep c/m constant. The larger the film, the larger the circles of confusion may become before a section looks blurry, but at the same time the larger the magnification m becomes. After all is said and done, only the aperture diameter determines your DOF. And that's exactly where the myth comes from that long focal length lenses or large format have narrow DOF: it's easy to have A=1mm with a 14mm lens (just dial in F/14), but next to impossible to find a 300mm lens with that aperture diameter.

    When it comes to really narrow DOF, 35mm cameras rule at the moment. You get normal lenses with A=50mm, portrait focal legths (85, 135mm) with A=70mm, and longer focal lengths with A>100mm, even A>150mm. No medium or large format camera can offer you that. Your 8x10" normal focal length lens may be f=300mm, but with F/8 you get A=37.5mm, which is nice but not extraordinary.

    All you have with large format is DOF too thin for reasonable hyper focal distances, that's why you need camera movements to get a landscape shot in focus, where 35mm cameras would just stop down a little.
    I just set up my 8x10 and my 35mm side by side on the same subject. The 8x10 is wearing a 14 inch Heliar about (350mm), set at f/4/5.6 split (it's WFO), no movements. The 35 is equidistant and set to the same approximate FoV, happening in this case to be about 70mm on a 24-70, making the subject (a small doctor Dr. Suess christmas tree on my window sill) the same size relative to the vertical part of the aspect ratios (the Heliar could easily cover a longer ratio), at f4/5.6 split. Only front part of the tree is in focus on the 8x10. The window frame behind it is decidedly bokehed. Nothing outside the window is discernable at all. With the DoF preview pressed to set the 35mm aperture to 4/5.6, focused on the christmas tree, similar FoV, all of the tree and the window sill are sharp, and I can easily make out the house number on the house next door. The exposures would be exactly the same, the FoV's very similar, and that's what even is where the rubber meets the road outside of a calculator. Dropping the aperture on the 35mm to 2.8 (thats as fast as my 24- 70 is) doesn't buy much of anything at all. Another stop and a half still wouldn't get it even close, and indeed stopping the Heliar to f8 doesn't change much in relation to the deep DoF of the 35mm camera at 2.8, which is still has far greater apparent DoF, and that's three stops of difference.

    In practical application both my experience as a multi-format shooter and this test indicate that no matter what you calculated, the reality doesn't fit your interpretation. At similar apertures and similar FoV's larger formats have far less apparent DoF. What I think is overlooked is that while DoF is a constant relationship to aperture and focal length, in application across formats, FoV for film size for a given focal length isn't, and so apparent DoF for the same FoV isn't either.

    When I put up the Turner Reich Triple at 25 inches, at a portrait distance, I'm lucky to get more than an eye without stopping down.

    Don't make me make these negatives.


    Last edited by JBrunner; 01-23-2010 at 05:32 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #20
    erikg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    pawtucket rhode island usa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,409
    There is always a risk to letting some element of style become a crutch. It's pretty normal to go back to things you've had success with, but when you do so without questioning why and find that you have done one thing when something else may have been a better choice, then there is a problem. But, if you can see that has happened, then you can try something else next time.
    As someone who shoots formats from 35mm to 8x10 and also likes to use some shallow DOF at times with all formats, I can say with certainty that David and J Brunner are right, LF rules for shallow DOF, even without movements. That's why folks are using speed lenses on Graflex SLRs and Aero ektars are hot lenses for graphics. If the formula doesn't fit that, then the formula is missing something.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin