Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,775   Posts: 1,484,477   Online: 880
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,272
    Thanks for the responses everyone. This is a head-on architectural shot of a building facade. So I won't be using the tilt function, just shifting to get the equivalent of front rise. So I guess the answer is I can assume the same depth of field charactersitics. Excellent news. It also makes more sense to me now why the depth of field scale is narrower on the PC lens - shorter throw. I should have thought of that before. Seems logical enough.

    Michael

  2. #12
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,158
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Thanks for the responses everyone. This is a head-on architectural shot of a building facade. So I won't be using the tilt function, just shifting to get the equivalent of front rise. So I guess the answer is I can assume the same depth of field charactersitics. Excellent news. It also makes more sense to me now why the depth of field scale is narrower on the PC lens - shorter throw. I should have thought of that before. Seems logical enough.

    Michael
    Michael

    One thing to keep in mind is that many DoF scales are rather optimistic (using a very liberal CoC). If you want your image to be more critically sharp, use an f/stop or two less on the scale than what your actual aperture is.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  3. #13
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,731
    Images
    6
    The DOF will be the same since they're the same focal length. There is a cool Iphone app called Simple DOF Calculator.
    http://www.montanamedia.nl/apps/simple-dof

    I also like using the depth of field preview on cameras also.

  4. #14
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,158
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    ...I also like using the depth of field preview on cameras also.
    That never worked for me.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,272
    Me either. I can't see anything well once stopped down.

    Regarding optimistic DoF scales, I never really rely on them. They are sometimes useful for a rough idea and then I always stop down further for better sharpness, although I try not to go further than necessary to avoid too much diffraction.

    Thanks

  6. #16
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California & Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,637
    For a particular exposure [read; f/stop fixed] and the same image size on the film for close subjects, the depth of field is the same regardless of the focal length of the lens!

    I have posted the detail here of this before.

    Steve
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  7. #17
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    The short answer is YES.

    If magnification is the same (magnification being controlled by focal length and distance from the subject), and aperture is the same, depth of field will be the same. That is, if the lenses are focused at the same distance, and prints of the same size and quality are made and viewed at the same distance, the part of the picture that is "acceptably sharp" in front of and behind the plane of critical focus will be the same.

    Tilting the lens, however, will change the orientation of the plane of critical focus, to which the lowly "acceptably sharp" areas are slaves. Therefore, when tilting, you do not change the "depth" of field of the image measured either way from the plane of critical focus, but you do change which parts of the composition fall within by the "acceptably sharp" field.

    So, there are some semantics involved, the definition of D of F being subject to numerous debates. The way I read it, by tilting, you don't actually change the depth of the field of acceptably sharp focus in the image, but you do apparently change it in the print, by way of reorienting it. If D of F is simply defined as "the depth of the acceptably sharp area in a print," then you do change it. If D of F is defined as "the depth of the acceptably sharp area surrounding the plane of critical focus in the image," then you do not.

    However, while the short answer about transferring the D of F from one lens to the other is YES, the more important answer is that you do not want to rely on the D of F scales on lenses to tell you what your D of F will be.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 05-17-2010 at 07:10 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  8. #18
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    For a particular exposure [read; f/stop fixed] and the same image size on the film for close subjects, the depth of field is the same regardless of the focal length of the lens!

    I have posted the detail here of this before.

    Steve
    Others have refuted this often repeated claim, and shown their work.

    http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...he-sequel.html

    Lee

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    That's not a refutation, Lee. Just a demonstration that it is extremely easy to confuse the amount of blur outside the DoF range with the size of the DoF range.

    What changes with focal length is the degree to which blur increases with distance.
    The actual range that falls within DoF however always is the same, given the conditions mentioned by Steve (though he should drop the "for close subjects" bit. It always is. The "for close subjects" thing stems from the confusion of hyperfocal distance with DoF.)

  10. #20
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California & Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,637
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee L View Post
    Others have refuted this often repeated claim, and shown their work.

    http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...he-sequel.html

    Lee
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    That's not a refutation, Lee. Just a demonstration that it is extremely easy to confuse the amount of blur outside the DoF range with the size of the DoF range.

    What changes with focal length is the degree to which blur increases with distance.
    The actual range that falls within DoF however always is the same, given the conditions mentioned by Steve (though he should drop the "for close subjects" bit. It always is. The "for close subjects" thing stems from the confusion of hyperfocal distance with DoF.)

    Lee will not give it up. Physics and optics be damned according to him!

    From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

    Close-up


    When the subject distance s approaches the focal length, using the formulas given above can result in significant errors. For close-up work, the hyperfocal distance has little applicability, and it usually is more convenient to express DOF in terms of image magnification. Let m be the magnification; when the subject distance is small in comparison with the hyperfocal distance,
    so that for a given magnification, DOF is independent of focal length. Stated otherwise, for the same subject magnification, all focal lengths give approximately the same DOF. This statement is true only when the subject distance is small in comparison with the hyperfocal distance, however.

    This requires repeating since we have the nay-saying-chorus:
    For close-up work, the hyperfocal distance has little applicability, and it usually is more convenient to express DOF in terms of image magnification. Let m be the magnification; when the subject distance is small in comparison with the hyperfocal distance,
    so that for a given magnification, DOF is independent of focal length. Stated otherwise, for the same subject magnification, all focal lengths give approximately the same DOF. This statement is true only when the subject distance is small in comparison with the hyperfocal distance, however.

    I properly stated a summary of this when I posted my statement before.

    Just because Mike Johnston [http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...he-sequel.htm] has a pretty website, does not make him right. For example: See "This guy thinks film is dead" APUG thread at http://www.apug.org/forums/forum214/...film-dead.html

    See what 2F2F said:
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    If magnification is the same (magnification being controlled by focal length and distance from the subject), and aperture is the same, depth of field will be the same. That is, if the lenses are focused at the same distance, and prints of the same size and quality are made and viewed at the same distance, the part of the picture that is "acceptably sharp" in front of and behind the plane of critical focus will be the same.

    Steve
    Last edited by Sirius Glass; 05-18-2010 at 01:17 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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