Depth Of Feild

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Edward Holt, Feb 27, 2005.

  1. Edward Holt

    Edward Holt Guest

    Are the depth of field markers on a 35mm film lens correct when the lens is
    used on a DSLR with a 1.6x magnification factor?

    If I have a depth of field of three metres to infinity using a 50mm lens on
    a film SLR and I put it on a DSLR, does the DSLR still have a depth of field
    of three metres to infinity or does the magnification factor impact it?
     
    Edward Holt, Feb 27, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Edward Holt

    dylan Guest

    No. Look for various threads in this group eg RE: DSLR Depth fo field 10/2
    2005 . I learnt a lot from the group, in particuilar that the DOF scale is
    only correct for 10x8 print when using 35mm film !
     
    dylan, Feb 27, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Edward Holt

    Don F Guest

    -----------
    As mentioned before, there are many tutorials and threads pertaining to
    your question. Depth of Field and Depth of Focus are commonly misunderstood
    terms and much has been written about it.
    An excellent (not too technical) source is:
    www.luminous-landscape.com

    Look under "Tutorials" and "Understanding Series". You will have a better
    understanding of what you are looking for.
    Regards,
    Don F
     
    Don F, Feb 27, 2005
    #3
  4. Hmmmm ... no ... not really. Look at this ...

    http://www.nikonlinks.com/unklbil/dof.htm

    It says the CoC is defined as 5 l/mm for a 10x8. This will
    result in CoC being d/1625, where d is the diagonal.

    But the value 1625 can be used for any size, so - the DOF
    scale on your lens is correct for any print size. It is
    just to change the viewing distance.

    OK - for smaller prints you need a magnifying glass and
    vary good photo paper - so there is a limit for smaller prints.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Feb 27, 2005
    #4
  5. Edward Holt

    dylan Guest

    so the reply (below) I got to an early post is wrong then ?
    Confused !!
     
    dylan, Feb 27, 2005
    #5
  6. Edward Holt

    Sheldon Guest

    IMO logic would dictate that the magnification factor is only for your use
    in determining what size your image will be. Keep in mind the focal length
    of the lens does not change. The image is being "cropped" by a specific
    ratio due to the smaller size of the image sensor. It is not being
    magnified in any way. Therefore, the DOF should be the same.

    As for the second statement: What difference should it make how large you
    print your image? The DOF is in the image. The image does not change when
    you blow it up, except for size, so how could DOF change? Your image is
    only two dimensional. That's like saying if you take a photo of your
    daughter and blow it up larger than 8x10 she will become your son.

    Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
     
    Sheldon, Feb 27, 2005
    #6
  7. Edward Holt

    Crownfield Guest

    correction: you are wrong.

    DOF is about acceptable sharpness.

    to quote:

    http://www.nikonlinks.com/unklbil/dof.htm
    It says the CoC is defined as 5 l/mm for a 10x8. This will
    result in CoC being d/1625, where d is the diagonal.

    But the value 1625 can be used for any size, so - the DOF
    scale on your lens is correct for any print size. It is
    just to change the viewing distance.

    note that sex changes are not mentioned anywhere.
     
    Crownfield, Feb 27, 2005
    #7
  8. Edward Holt

    Bubbabob Guest

    You'll have less depth of field with the DSLR. People will give you all
    sorts of bullshit reasons why this isn't so but experimention bears this
    out. It has to do with the difference in sensor size requiring a smaller
    COC in order to maintain the same depth of field in indentically sized
    prints. You'll get the same DOF that you'd have if you cut the
    approprately sized piece out of the middle of one of your film camera
    prints and enlarged it to the original print's size. DOF is a nebulous
    term and requires that you standardize your print size and viewing
    distance before any sort of meaningful numbers for comparison can be
    generated.
     
    Bubbabob, Feb 27, 2005
    #8
  9. Edward Holt

    Bubbabob Guest

    Images are 'perfectly' sharp only at a single distance. As you magnify
    the print, objects in front and in back of this plane become unacceptably
    unsharp. If you alter your viewing distance so that the image subtends
    the same number of degrees as the smaller image, this is effectively
    negated. If you don't back off, larger prints have less depth of field
    because you're magnifying the COF.
     
    Bubbabob, Feb 27, 2005
    #9
  10. Edward Holt

    dylan Guest

    might be useful http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

    PS. I originally didn't believe it either !!
     
    dylan, Feb 27, 2005
    #10
  11. Yes - it is wrong IMHO. Read the web page I gave in my reply.
    There is it explained. And as far as I can see - the 10x8 is
    just an example. If you use 10x8 and look at it at 25 cm (called
    normal viewing distance), then the eye resolution is supposed to
    be 1/5 mm. Therefore - this is used as the definition of DOF.
    But - if you make a larger print at look at it further away you
    get the same figure 1625 - and thus the same DOF. If you make a smaller
    print - then it is problems though - and the DOF will in practice
    increase.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Feb 27, 2005
    #11
  12. You are both right :)

    The definition is that the CoC is 1/1625 of the diagonal.
    Then - it does not matter the slightest how large or
    small the print is. The DOF scale on the lens is the same
    for all print sizes. This is according to the defintion
    of DOF - so - if we are talking about DOF - it does not
    matter what print size you have.

    But - it does matter in practice what print size you have.
    In smaller prints you cannot see small details and when
    viewing larger prints you can go nearer. So - the actual
    sharpness needed usually change with print size. So - in
    practice the definition used for DOF might not be all that
    useful - and you could use another CoC. But - this is __NOT__
    according to the definition of DOF - it is another value,
    maybe more useful in some circumstances.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Feb 27, 2005
    #12
  13. Edward Holt

    dylan Guest

    Thanks, makes sense now.
     
    dylan, Feb 27, 2005
    #13
  14. Edward Holt

    Paul Mitchum Guest

    You're saying that it's possible for the circle of confusion to be
    equivalent if you change the size of the paper *and* the viewing
    distance to maintain that relationship between them.

    And in that circumstance, yes, the DoF would be the same for the two
    prints. However, unless you somehow make it so that the larger image can
    only be viewed from a certain distance, the DoF will change as people
    get closer to it.
     
    Paul Mitchum, Feb 27, 2005
    #14
  15. Edward Holt

    Paul Mitchum Guest

    DoF resides in the capacity of your eye to see detail in the finished
    print, not in the lens. So regardless of what the DoF indicators on the
    lens says, different print sizes will result in different DoF.
    Again, DoF is *perceived,* it is not 'in the image.' If you take a
    blurry image and shrink it, the shrunken image will appear to be
    sharper. This is because the DoF has *changed.*
    No, it's like saying that if you take a photo of your daughter and blow
    it up larger than [whatever dimensions] it will become an image of your
    daughter where the parts that are out of focus will appear much more out
    of focus. :)
    OK, will do. :)

    (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
     
    Paul Mitchum, Feb 27, 2005
    #15
  16. Edward Holt

    Paul Mitchum Guest

    ....of an 8x10 print viewed at 25cm. :)
    ....as long as it's an 8x10 print at 25cm. :)
    ....that happen to be 8x10 viewed at 25cm. :)
    I think that if you look for more definitions of DoF, you'll find more
    accurate information. '1/1625 of diagonal' is only part-way there. It's
    like saying that the theory of relativity is equal to 3, because you can
    solve e=mc^2 for e=3.
    The CoC doesn't change; your eyes' capacity to see detail is really only
    going to be affected by disease or old age. Relative to the constant
    CoC, the DoF changes as you alter print size and viewing distance.
     
    Paul Mitchum, Feb 27, 2005
    #16
  17. Edward Holt

    Paul Mitchum Guest

    I think you have confused 'Depth of Field' with 'Field of Vision.'
     
    Paul Mitchum, Feb 27, 2005
    #17
  18. Edward Holt

    Bubbabob Guest

    0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

    In what way?
     
    Bubbabob, Feb 28, 2005
    #18
  19. Technically I agree with Bubbabob. Personally, I've always used the depth
    of field preview button and then close down one additional stop for
    insurance. It hasn't failed me yet regardless of format. I guess you might
    need to use the scale on the lens for really low light photography where
    the button is impracticle.
     
    stephen zimic via PhotoKB.com, Feb 28, 2005
    #19
  20. Edward Holt

    Bubbabob Guest

    I've experimentally determined the same thing. One additional stop seems to
    do it.
     
    Bubbabob, Feb 28, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.