S2 Depth of Field data?

[plevyadophy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Does anyone have data, of the kind published by the DOFMaster site, for the depth of field measurements for the Leica S2 and its various lenses released and lenses due to be released according to the lens roadmap?

 

Thanks in advance.

[Advertisement]

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

[Wiggi]

Maybe you ask Leica, if they have Depth Of Field data. With the R- and M-lenses you get them. i think this should also be possible for the more expensive S-lenses.

[albertknappmd]

The DOF is in the individual lens instruction booklet. I acutally had the indiviudal charts laminated for easy referral in the field. Don't forget that you can also avail yourself of the DOF preview button in an emergency.

[Bo_Lorentzen]

DOF data seems a bit arbitrary to me, so much depend on both the magnification of the final image, crop will also affect the final magnification and even applied contrast levels will affect the perceived sharpness.

 

.

[c6gowin]

I have been trying out an iPhone app called Dr DOF. It is highly customizable so it is possible to enter specific information for the S2 and lenses and save it to a camera bag for easy recall. So far it seems pretty handy. I haven't yet had a chance to check its dof calculations against actual S2 use.

[JMacD]

Mark,

Thanks for the iPhone application. Pretty extensive.

My experience with the S2 is that my enlargements are so large that normal DOF rules does not apply. I had to do my own tests to learn what my range was. Admittedly a larger sensor makes for shallow DOF and in some cases, rather than just closing down an f stop, I jumped to software solutions, which blend two or more shots at different focus, which I have found to be amazingly effective. If interested, I can provide more info.

 

In many cases I wanted to limit the DOF and the larger sensor and fast 2.5 enhances the effect I was trying to achieve.

 

I was going to mention that the Dr DOF was somewhat expensive for an iPhone application, but when one has already entered the S system economy, one can rationalize any iPhone application.

[c6gowin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

JMacD,

I didn't recall the Dr DOF app being expensive - in fact I am rather stingy when it comes to buying iPhone apps. However, as you pointed out, the price of the app is nothing compared to the price of an S2.

 

I am curious about how large you are printing and what software your are using for focus stacking. I have taken multiple exposures at different focal distances in a few instances recently in anticipation of doing focus stacking. In my case, it was landscape photos where I wanted greater depth of field so foreground objects would be in focus as well as the primary landscape focus point. Generally, I prefer the shallow depth of field offered by larger sensors as in the S2, but sometimes a large dof is needed.

[JMacD]

Mark, try Helicon Focus 4.2.6 for stacked focus blend. It has a trial version.

I haven't used it on landscapes yet, but tested it on a close up, not macro.

 

I will attempt to attach three images: 1. close focus on water, 2. the "blend", 3. and then focus on the leaves. I subsequently tried to duplicate what Helicon Focus accomplished as a "blend" in a mere 10 seconds by trying to do the same using Photoshop and it took me an hour. That's why I say the software solution is magic.

 

I hope the moderator does not move this to digital processing, the issue was DOF for an S2 system.

 

Yes I could have figured this out in a table, and had it on a tripod with a f11 stop, but then I could not have frozen the movement of the water without a strobe. Admittedly, the "proper" solution would have been high f stop, on a tripod with a strobe. I was just experimenting to see if I could do this handheld, and surprisingly I figure I can if necessary.

 

This was a DOF test, hand held manual focus. I first focused on the water, re-framed to take the first image, then without moving the camera, which had has been center framed on the leaves, I hit the AF button, so it now focuses on the leaves without moving the camera framing, and take a second image. A tripod would have made this easier, but I was just experimenting with the approach. It is surprisingly forgiving. Download a trial and see if you like how it works. However, I agree with you, usually I like the compressed DOF of the S system, hey that's one of the reasons to go MFD. Otherwise just get a point and shoot for maximum DOF.

 

Regarding the Dr. DOF, it is all of $6. Not quite out of line with the cost of an S system.

Regarding how large I print, my maximum is nine feet wide. Normally 5 to 7 feet. So you can understand why a DOF table might not give me the answers I need. I have a 120mm on order and the DOF will be a bigger issue to consider than what I face with the 35mm. As I start to use a 120mm for some macros, a focus blend using software will make more sense, but then I will be using a tripod for sure.

 

In any case, it is nice to have options with the S system.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[c6gowin]

Thank you for the info JMacD. Helicon Focus sounds like a must try.

[lars_bergquist]

Can anyone with a S2 lens and handbook tell me what circle of confusion diameter Leica are basing their depth of field calculations on?

 

For 35mm Leitz/Leica have been using 1/30mm (0.03333 ...) since 1925, a value that went obsolete c. 1930. For 35mm, 1/60mm is about appropriate.

 

The old man from the Depths of Field

[Nick Rains]

Can anyone with a S2 lens and handbook tell me what circle of confusion diameter Leica are basing their depth of field calculations on?

 

For 35mm Leitz/Leica have been using 1/30mm (0.03333 ...) since 1925, a value that went obsolete c. 1930. For 35mm, 1/60mm is about appropriate.

 

The old man from the Depths of Field

 

An appropriate DOF calculation depends entirely on the size of the prints you intend to make. For a 10x8 inch print the CoC to use is about 0.02mm and for a 20x16 it's more like 0.01mm.

[giordano]

Can anyone with a S2 lens and handbook tell me what circle of confusion diameter Leica are basing their depth of field calculations on?

 

+1

 

If the depth of field tables in the lens instruction leaflets don't specify a circle of confusion, just post a couple of examples (focal length, aperture, distance focused on, depth of field) and we can calculate the CoC from that.

 

If Leica don't provide depth of field tables, let's infer that they're treating S2 photographers as capable of making their own decisions about CoC.

[kidigital]

I believe that the old man from the age of the abacus is correct: .03

 

The manual for the Summarit lenses list the 35mm equivalent for the 180mm and 70mm lenses as being 144mm and 56mm.

[Nick Rains]

I believe that the old man from the age of the abacus is correct: .03

 

The manual for the Summarit lenses list the 35mm equivalent for the 180mm and 70mm lenses as being 144mm and 56mm.

 

Only for small prints. That CoC is more appropriate for 35mm film. Plug 0.01mm into a DOF calculator and you'll get the sort of DOF you can expect in a 20x30" print. If you print smaller, you can use a bigger CoC but 0.01mm will give you the DOF at max print size.

[giordano]

Only for small prints. That CoC is more appropriate for 35mm film. Plug 0.01mm into a DOF calculator and you'll get the sort of DOF you can expect in a 20x30" print. If you print smaller, you can use a bigger CoC but 0.01mm will give you the DOF at max print size.

 

Any CoC whose radius is less than the pixel pitch (0.006mm on the S2) is vanity and delusion. And you're forgetting the effect of viewing distance and printing technology.

[Nick Rains]

Any CoC whose radius is less than the pixel pitch (0.006mm on the S2) is vanity and delusion. And you're forgetting the effect of viewing distance and printing technology.

 

Yes, agreed, and the figure I quoted, 0.01mm, is about 1.7 times the pixel pitch.

 

I find this figure gives me a DOF which closely matches my prints, which are printed at the limit of the S2s native res at about 200-240dpi.

 

In practice you get the DOF that you get, I don't worry too much about predicting it beforehand.

[giordano]

Yes, agreed, and the figure I quoted, 0.01mm, is about 1.7 times the pixel pitch.

 

Every DoF calculator I've seen takes the diameter of the CoC rather than the radius, so when you said "Plug 0.01mm into a DOF calculator" I bet you meant a 0.01mm diameter, i.e. a radius of 5 micrometres vs a 6 micrometre pixel pitch.

[01af]

Any COC whose radius is less than the pixel pitch (0.006 mm on the S2) is vanity and delusion.

That's a common misconception. For example, a lens that produces COCs of, say, 0.003 mm diameter will yield a noticably sharper image than a lens that produces COCs of 0.005 mm diameter, even though both diameters are smaller than the pixel pitch. And the radius is even less than that (half the diameter).

 

It's vanity and delusion if people think they can choose a COC diameter and then go from there. The COC diameter that defines depth-of-field is a given parameter, and the problem is to find out what its value happens to be. And the value is not fixed for any given camera but depends on a wealth of factors—the camera's image format being one of the most important ones but not the only one.

 

 

In practice you get the DOF that you get, I don't worry too much about predicting it beforehand.

Exactly. And Leica worries even less predicting other photographers' DOF ... which is a fairly smart move in my opinion.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[giordano]

The COC diameter that defines depth-of-field is a given parameter.

 

Given by what?

[Nick Rains]

Every DoF calculator I've seen takes the diameter of the CoC rather than the radius, so when you said "Plug 0.01mm into a DOF calculator" I bet you meant a 0.01mm diameter, i.e. a radius of 5 micrometres vs a 6 micrometre pixel pitch.

 

Correct, I don't think I said radius, but it is indeed the diameter you plug in. And I use 0.01mm.