X Vario depth of field table

[jpreisch]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Where can I find a depth of field table for my X-Vario?

Thanks in advance.

[barjohn]

There are various depth of field calculators on the web. You can build a table in Excel from the information but no one has published one that I know of. The DOF changes with both aperture and focal length so it is a lot of calculations to cover every possible combination.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jpreisch]

Thanks, but all the calculation was why I was looking for a table. Could "Leica" help me out? Their M lenses have an engraved table!! Come on Leica...I love my X-Vario...Help me out.

Edited August 18, 2013 by jpreisch

[earleygallery]

You can see the dof on the screen.

[barjohn]

There is no depth of field scale on the screen.

[Carduelis]

Since this thread was started, I am still surprised that there appears to be no official figures for the depth of field scales associated with the X-Vario zoom lens. They certainly appear for individual M lenses listed in Leica Wiki.

[firoze]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Where can I find a depth of field table for my X-Vario?

Thanks in advance.

 

Check the X Vario group on Facebook, someone has kindly posted the DOF tables there. You will find them under the heading "Files".

[waloszek]

I calculated DOF tables for the X Vario some time ago:

Leica X Vario: Depth of Field Tables (introductory page that links to the actual tables)

 

There is also a table and some info for the hyperfocal distance:

Leica X Vario: Hyperfocal Distance

 

All the calculations are based on the DOFMaster formulae and were performed using MS Excel. The calculations are explained here:

General: Calculating Hyperfocal Distance and Depth of Field

 

Best regards, Gerd

[Guytou]

Without forgetting this :

 

http://www.waloszek.de/lxv/DOF%20Distances.htm

 

Thank You very much Gerd !

 

Guy

[wda]

All very interesting the work that has been done. But what about everyday shooting? Does anyone have time or inclination to work out DOF options when shooting out and about? I have always used my judgement and experience to gauge whether or not a specific lens aperture setting is needed. Usually other considerations become dominant and I accept the result.

[waloszek]

Here are a few "conclusions" for field work regarding the hyper focal distance:

• 70 mm (equiv.): Using the hyperfocal distance does not make sense because it is difficult to reliably set a distance between the 4 m and infinity marks
  
• 50 mm (equiv.): At f14 you reach the magical "4 m" mark. This does not make much sense, either...
  
• 35 mm (equiv.): At about f6.4 you reach the magical "4 m" mark. Thus, setting distance a little bit beyond 4 m and aperture to f6.4 can be useful in certain cases.
  
• 28 mm (equiv.): At f4 you come close to the magical "4 m" mark. Thus, you can set aperture to f4 and distance to 4 m or a little bit beyond, or you use f3.5 and move the distance ring a little bit more beyond 4 m to set the hyperfocal distance (meaning that you will get everything sharp from 2 or 2.5 m to infinity). Both settings may be useful options for street photographers.
  

(from: Leica X Vario: Hyperfocal Distance)

 

For DOF it's more complex to arrive at easy guidelines for the field...

Best regards, Gerd

[Carduelis]

I find your tables useful Gerd. I am mainly interested in how far I can extend my depth of field into the foreground without losing infinity when taking pictures of landscapes. After looking at your tables, I used 3 m for 28 mm and 5 m for 35 mm and a touch less than infinity at 50 mm/70 mm focal lengths at f8. Seemed to work well in practice today. I feel I can remember this OK as a rule of thumb.

 

I have also enjoyed reading your Ricoh GXR information on your web-site. I am still a big fan of that camera.

[waloszek]

@Carduelis: Thank you that you find my tables useful, and, particularly, that you could use them to create your own "rules of thumb" from them.

Regrettably, I do not use my GXR at lot at the moment -- because of the X Vario and the GR. I hope that this will change again...

 

@wda: The tables are just the "raw material." Like Carduelis, everyone can derive his or her personal "rules of thumb" from them (or any other DOF tables or calculations) because I do not know what shooting habits people have.

 

Nonetheless, I have derived "simplified" versions from my "distance tables", which are available in several degrees of precision (Leica X Vario: Depth of Field Tables).

One might even formulate the distances "informally" like "less than 1 m" instead of "0.94 m" - but that's also a matter of personal preferences.

 

I derived a number of "recommendations" from the simplified tables, but they are more complex than the hyperfocal recommendations so that I have to refer you and others to my Web page: Leica X Vario: Depth of Field Tables

 

Perhaps, someone can help to further simplify these recommendations...

 

Best regards, Gerd

[jpreisch]

Thanks. This is what I was looking for. I like to zone focus my M4. And now I can do it with my X Vario

Jim

[waloszek]

Now that the OP's request has been satisfied, we have come "full circle" in this thread -- and I am glad that my DOF tables have found "consumers"...

Best regards, Gerd

[jaapv]

I find your tables useful Gerd. I am mainly interested in how far I can extend my depth of field into the foreground without losing infinity when taking pictures of landscapes. After looking at your tables, I used 3 m for 28 mm and 5 m for 35 mm and a touch less than infinity at 50 mm/70 mm focal lengths at f8. Seemed to work well in practice today. I feel I can remember this OK as a rule of thumb.

 

I have also enjoyed reading your Ricoh GXR information on your web-site. I am still a big fan of that camera.

 

I would remind you of the words of Gunther Osterloh: "In landscape photography, if you want a sharp horizon, your focus must be on the horizon."

 

It is the pity of the world that Lars Bergquist isn't with us any more. He thrived on DOF discussions.

 

DOF is actually a misnomer. the acronym should be DOM - Depth Of Misfocus, as it denotes the span of acceptable UNsharpness at a given print size - with the official being 6x9 centimeters.

 

One of the problems is that it is not just dependent on the aperture and distance, but also on contrast and subject matter.

My take for deep focus photography is to use the smallest aperture that is compatible with the longest shutterspeed that one cn use in the given circumstances with the highest acceptable ISO - and to heck with the numbers.

 

And on a sidenote: it is not some magical area where everything is sharp - it builds up and falls off gradually within the span that the photographer can accept with the final print size in mind.

Edited February 24, 2014 by jaapv

[Carduelis]

I would remind you of the words of Gunther Osterloh: "In landscape photography, if you want a sharp horizon, your focus must be on the horizon."

 

It is the pity of the world that Lars bergquist isn't with us any more. He thrived on DOF discussions.

 

DOF is actually a misnomer. the acronym should be DOM - Depth Of Misfocus, as it denotes the span of acceptable UNsharpness at a given print size - with the official being 6x9 centimeters.

 

One of the problems is that it is not just dependent on the aperture and distance, but also on contrast and subject matter.

My take for deep focus photography is to use the smallest aperture that is compatible with the longest shutterspeed that one cn use in the given circumstances with the highest acceptable ISO - and to heck with the numbers.

 

And on a sidenote: it is not some magical area where everything is sharp - it builds up and falls off gradually within the span that the photographer can accept with the final print size in mind.

 

Thanks for your interesting comments Jaap. I always used to focus on infinity, then I thought I could obtain more depth of field out to infinity from the distance scales. I will try focusing on the horizon instead as advised assuming it turns out to be infinity or close to infinity. I am aware of using high f numbers, but I read about diffraction and tend to go no higher than about f11/f13. The lens performance tables also seem to favour f5.6/f8.

 

Like most Forum members, I really miss Lars Bergquist. He had an exceptional knowledge about cameras/optics and I really enjoyed reading his informative articles in excellent English. Thank goodness that his previous articles are still available in the archives.