Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/11/01

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] M8 & Depth of Field
From: henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff)
Date: Wed Nov 1 08:57:25 2006
References: <20061101060806.40806.qmail@web37711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20061101093955.033f5790@screengang.com> <p0623091fc16e6dd0cff5@[10.1.16.129]>

At 8:37 AM -0700 11/1/06, Henning Wulff wrote:
>Hi Didier,
>
>
>At 9:57 AM +0100 11/1/06, Didier Ludwig wrote:
>>Hi Wai Leong
>>
>>I'm not shure about that. Yes, the DOF marks on the lenses are no 
>>longer correct when used with a M8 - but the other way round. I 
>>don't make any calculations - am not really interested in the 
>>mathematical aspects of photography - but a few months ago I did 
>>just a few empiric tests with the same 50mm/1.2 lens wide open on a 
>>M6 and a R-D1 (with it's crop factor of 1,5). It seems to be the 
>>opposite - on the R-D1 shots there was visibly more DOF. Same 
>>lens/smaller format = MORE DOF.
>
>Not sure how you tested, but if you tested with both cameras at the 
>same distance and same aperture, the RD-1 would have exhibited less 
>depth of field. If you tested with the two cameras imaging the same 
>area, the film M6 would have exhibited more depth of field.

Damn! That last should have been 'the film M6 would have exhibited 
_less_ depth of field.

>
>When testing make sure of your parameters.

When writing make sure of your words. :-(

>>It is my general experience that the bigger the formats get, the 
>>narrower the DOF is with the same focal length/aperture. On 6x6 
>>negatives with 100/f2.8, I have a DOF about as narrow as with 
>>50/f1.4 on small format.
>
>You're talking about two completely different things. In the first 
>part, you're talking about same focal length/aperture, in the second 
>about the same (approximate) angle of view. With the larger 
>negative, at the same focal length/aperture you have more depth of 
>field, with the same angle of view (longer focal lengths for the 
>larger format) which will result in less depth of field.
>
>>But as said, these are no academic calculations, just estimations 
>>out of my modest experiences.
>>
>>Didier
>>
>
>--
>    *            Henning J. Wulff
>   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
>  /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
>  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


-- 
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com

Replies: Reply from rangefinder at screengang.com (Didier Ludwig) ([Leica] M8 & Depth of Field)
In reply to: Message from leewaileong19 at yahoo.com (Lee Wai Leong) ([Leica] M8 & Depth of Field)
Message from rangefinder at screengang.com (Didier Ludwig) ([Leica] M8 & Depth of Field)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] M8 & Depth of Field)