Jump to content

Leica S depth of field compared to Fullframe


jip

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I made a calculated spreadsheet to show the difference in depth of field between:

Leica S and Leica M (Typ 240) and Leica SL, and other 24mpix fullframe cameras.

 

The PDF can be viewed here: DEPTH OF FIELD LEICA S.pdf

 

In short:

 

 

Leica S depth of field compared to fullframe 24MPix cameras :

 

 

Leica 180mm 3.5 @ 3.5 @ 4.00M = 4.0CM ON S006 @ 37MPix

Leica 135mm 3.4 @ 3.4 @ 3.75M = 6.1CM ON M240 @ 24MPix

Leica 180mm 3.5 @ 5.3 @ 4.00M = 6.1CM ON S006 @ 37MPix

 

Leica 120mm 2.5 @ 2.5 @ 2.67M = 2.9CM ON S006 @ 37MPix

Leica 90mm 2.0 @ 2.0 @ 2.50M = 3.6CM ON M240 @ 24MPix

Leica 120mm 2.5 @ 3.1 @ 2.67M = 3.6CM ON S006 @ 37MPix

 

Leica 100mm 2.0 @ 2.0 @ 2.22M = 2.3CM ON S006 @ 37MPix

Leica 75mm 1.4 @ 1.4 @ 2.08M = 2.5CM ON M240 @ 24MPix

Leica 90mm 2.0 @ 2.0 @ 2.50M = 3.6CM ON M240 @ 24MPix

Leica 100mm 2.0 @ 2.2 @ 2.22M = 2.5CM ON S006 @ 37MPix

Leica 100mm 2.0 @ 3.1 @ 2.22M = 3.6CM ON S006 @ 37MPix

 

Leica 70mm 2.5 @ 2.5 @ 1.56M = 2.9CM ON S006 @ 37MPix

Leica 50mm 1.4 @ 1.4 @ 1.42M = 2.5CM ON M240 @ 24MPix

Leica 50mm 1.4 @ 1.6 @ 1.42M = 2.9CM ON M240 @ 24MPix

Leica 50mm 1.4 @ 2.5 @ 1.42M = 4.5CM ON M240 @ 24MPix

 

Leica 45mm 2.8 @ 2.8 @ 1.00M = 3.2CM ON S006 @ 37MPix

Leica 35mm 1.4 @ 1.4 @ 0.97M = 2.5CM ON M240 @ 24MPix

Leica 35mm 1.4 @ 1.8 @ 0.97M = 3.2CM ON M240 @ 24MPix

Leica 35mm 1.4 @ 2.8 @ 0.97M = 5.0CM ON M240 @ 24MPix

 

Leica 35mm 2.5 @ 2.5 @ 0.78M = 2.9CM ON S006 @ 37MPix

Leica 28mm 1.4 @ 1.4 @ 0.78M = 2.5CM ON M240 @ 24MPix

Leica 28mm 1.4 @ 1.6 @ 0.78M = 2.9CM ON M240 @ 24MPix

Leica 28mm 1.4 @ 2.5 @ 0.78M = 4.5CM ON M240 @ 24MPix

 

Leica 30mm 2.8 @ 2.8 @ 0.67M = 3.2CM ON S006 @ 37MPix

Leica 24mm 1.4 @ 1.4 @ 0.67M = 2.5CM ON M240 @ 24MPix

Leica 24mm 1.4 @ 1.8 @ 0.67M = 3.2CM ON M240 @ 24MPix

Leica 24mm 1.4 @ 2.8 @ 0.67M = 5.0CM ON M240 @ 24MPix

 

Leica 24mm 3.5 @ 3.5 @ 0.53M = 4.0CM ON S006 @ 37MPix

Leica 18mm 3.8 @ 3.8 @ 0.50M = 6.8CM ON M240 @ 24MPix

Leica 24mm 3.5 @ 3.8 @ 0.53M = 4.4CM ON S006 @ 37MPix

Edited by jip
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a basically pointless table.

 

For the same depth-of-field at an equivalent focal length, the lens on the Leica S must be stopped down by 2/3 of an f-stop more than the lens on a 35-mm-format camera, as simple as that. No tables required.

 

And oh, by the way—the number of megapixels has nothing to do with this.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a basically pointless table.

 

For the same depth-of-field at an equivalent focal length, the lens on the Leica S must be stopped down by 2/3 of an f-stop more than the lens on a 35-mm-format camera, as simple as that. No tables required.

 

And oh, by the way—the number of megapixels has nothing to do with this.

Megapixels or resolution of the capture technique be it film or a sensor DO have to do with it. Why bash my post trying to help people when you clearly don't know what I'm talking about, even after reading my document. Edited by jip
Link to post
Share on other sites

The resolution has to do with the depth of field calculation because:

 

The range that is called 'acceptably sharp' varies when the resolution of your capturing media changes. The higher the resolution of your capturing media (your film or sensor) the smaller the 'acceptably sharp' range becomes.

 

Just like that the depth of field ranges on Leica M lenses is usually very forgiving, which isn't smart when using high resolution sensors like we use today. (Yes before someone calls it out: also the film depth, and flat sensor largely have to do with this.)

 

To calculate our depth of field we will think of the full size of the file, meaning viewed at 100% or printed at it's maximum size at 300dpi.

Edited by jip
Link to post
Share on other sites

Choosing 100% is one way to define DoF, but it's not the only one - it's just most obvious on a computer. When comparing two systems for a specific print size, a resolution independent choice is justified. 

 

But it gets worse. Suppose the lens is imperfect. Then it has a resolution independent DoF by any measure - all you're doing is sampling its blur at higher frequencies. Some DoF calculators will give a nonexistent DoF at f/22 because it deems the diffraction to render everything unsharp. This would come as a surprise to those who use it to get near and distant objects "sharp enough".

 

I'm not advocating one definition or another. But it's important to agree on a definition of DoF before the argument starts  :) .

 

(Thank heavens we're not getting into the "equivalence" war.)

 

Best,

 

Matt

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...