01af Posted June 27, 2010 Share #41 Posted June 27, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Ouch! Too bad Martin Seeliger from Leica's Information Service department has no clue what he's talking about. The magnification (he said, 'reproduction scale' but I'm next to sure he meant reproduction ratio, or magnification) is always the same with the same lens at the same distance, no matter what camera you're using. This much is true. Still this does not mean same depth-of-field because the smaller image format implies a smaller circle of confusion. So Mr. Seeliger is wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 27, 2010 Posted June 27, 2010 Hi 01af, Take a look here Accuracy of depth-of-field scale of lenses on M8. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
rosuna Posted June 27, 2010 Share #42 Posted June 27, 2010 I am gearing myself mentally up for an extended trip where I will be using my M8 gear (body plus 5 lenses) as my my main camera setup. How accurate is the depth-of-field scale of Leica lenses on the M8? Is the scale on the lenses as accurate as on film M bodies? Any feedback is appreciated. Here you have some clues: Luminous landscape R. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWatts Posted June 28, 2010 Share #43 Posted June 28, 2010 Dear Mr. Watts thank you very much for your interest in the Leica system. No matter if you use an analogue M camera, a Leica M8 with a slightly smaller sensor or the new Leica M9 with full size sensor, the reproduction scale remains the same, if the same focal length is used. That is why the depth of field engravings do not need to be changed, also with your Leica M8, they are still accurate. Thank you very much for your understanding and have a nice time with your Leica M8. Mit freundlichen Gruessen / kind regards Martin Seeliger Leica Camera AG Informationsservice Gewerbepark 8 / D-35606 Solms / Germany Email address removed by Moderator. Please do not post email addresses in the forum. -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Deiss, Ulli Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. März 2010 16:54 An: Seeliger, Martin Betreff: WG: Depth of field. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted June 28, 2010 Share #44 Posted June 28, 2010 Even without his email address publicized, Martin Seeliger is still wrong, I’m afraid. 01af is right: While Martin Seeliger acknowledges one factor (the magnification which stays the same, regardless of the image size), he ignores the other factor that does crucially depend on the image size, namely the circle of confusion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 28, 2010 Share #45 Posted June 28, 2010 Well, in a way he is right, provided nothing changes. I.e. the camera-subject distance is unaltered, the focal length is unaltered, the magnification of the print and the viewing distance are unaltered. Which means both field of view and the size of the print are reduced 1.33x. But DOF would be the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted June 28, 2010 Share #46 Posted June 28, 2010 Yep, the DOF-independent-of-sensor-size party would just have to standardize on a constant viewing distance for all print sizes large and small, and they would eventually be right. With billboards and such it might take some time getting used to, but I guess it beats being wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted June 28, 2010 Share #47 Posted June 28, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Which means both field of view and the size of the print are reduced 1.33x. But DOF would be the same. Okay. Didn't know that M8 users always print everything 1.33× smaller than M9 users do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 28, 2010 Share #48 Posted June 28, 2010 Not all of them, just Mr. S. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted June 28, 2010 Share #49 Posted June 28, 2010 So why don't we yet have a sticky or similar "executive summary" of this, surely we have seen enough DoF threads that only after long and repeated iterations end up at the same conclusion: 1 DoF is different on the M8 2 DoF is slightly outdated if you apply modern standards/expectations 1+ 2 gives 2 stops correction on the M8 and 1 stop for the M8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 29, 2010 Share #50 Posted June 29, 2010 Typo Stephen; M9 and M8, I guess Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted June 29, 2010 Share #51 Posted June 29, 2010 Yep, you get a score of 10/10 which is more than I can say for most of my students:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 29, 2010 Share #52 Posted June 29, 2010 You couldn't have said that about me in my student days at TUDelft... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWatts Posted June 30, 2010 Share #53 Posted June 30, 2010 And this is what Leica told Me :- Dear Mr. Watts, thank you very much for your interest in the Leica system. No matter if you use an analogue M camera, a Leica M8 with a slightly smaller sensor or the new Leica M9 with full size sensor, the reproduction scale remains the same, if the same focal length is used. That is why the depth of field engravings do not need to be changed, also with your Leica M8, they are still accurate. Thank you very much for your understanding and have a nice time with your Leica M8. Mit freundlichen Gruessen / kind regards Martin Seeliger Leica Camera AG Informationsservice Gewerbepark 8 / D-35606 Solms / Germany Leica Camera AG / [Admin Edit: DO NOT PUBLISH EMAIL ADDRESSES] Telephone +49(0)6442-208-111 / Fax +49(0)6442-208-339 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Deiss, Ulli Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. März 2010 16:54 An: Seeliger, Martin Betreff: WG: Depth of field. -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: David Watts Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. März 2010 16:43 An: Deiss, Ulli Betreff: Depth of field. As I am now using a Leica M8, will the depth of field engravings on my older lenses, designed for use on film Leica's, still be accurate ? Thanking you in advance for your reply. David Watts, St. Mawes, Cornwall. Aus Leidenschaft zum perfekten Bild / Passion for perfect picture. html.de Forum - HTML für Anfänger & Fortgeschrittene ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Leica Camera AG / Oskar-Barnack-Strasse 11 / D-35606 Solms AG mit dem Sitz in Solms / AG Wetzlar HRB 966 Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Franz Jung Vorstand: Rudolf Spiller (Vorstandsvorsitzender) Dr. Martin Picherer (stellvertretender Vorsitzender), Andreas Lobejäger ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient), please be aware that any dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to email or messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Leica Camera AG shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWatts Posted June 30, 2010 Share #54 Posted June 30, 2010 Generally speaking, and benefiting from the fact that the DOF is greater on the M8 compared to film-M's, if you are trying to decide where to set the infinity mark, if you're inside the aperture mark, you can't miss. Dear Mr. Watts, thank you very much for your interest in the Leica system. No matter if you use an analogue M camera, a Leica M8 with a slightly smaller sensor or the new Leica M9 with full size sensor, the reproduction scale remains the same, if the same focal length is used. That is why the depth of field engravings do not need to be changed, also with your Leica M8, they are still accurate. Thank you very much for your understanding and have a nice time with your Leica M8. Mit freundlichen Gruessen / kind regards Leica Camera AG Informationsservice Gewerbepark 8 / D-35606 Solms / Germany Leica Camera AG / [Admin Edit: DO NOT PUBLISH EMAIL ADDRESSES] Telephone +49(0)6442-208-111 / Fax +49(0)6442-208-339 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Deiss, Ulli Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. März 2010 16:54 An: Seeliger, Martin Betreff: WG: Depth of field. -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: David Watts Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. März 2010 16:43 An: Deiss, Ulli Betreff: Depth of field. As I am now using a Leica M8, will the depth of field engravings on my older lenses, designed for use on film Leica's, still be accurate ? Thanking you in advance for your reply. David Watts, St. Mawes, Cornwall. Aus Leidenschaft zum perfekten Bild / Passion for perfect picture. html.de Forum - HTML für Anfänger & Fortgeschrittene ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Leica Camera AG / Oskar-Barnack-Strasse 11 / D-35606 Solms AG mit dem Sitz in Solms / AG Wetzlar HRB 966 Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Franz Jung Vorstand: Rudolf Spiller (Vorstandsvorsitzender) Dr. Martin Picherer (stellvertretender Vorsitzender), Andreas Lobejäger ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient), please be aware that any dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to email or messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Leica Camera AG shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 30, 2010 Share #55 Posted June 30, 2010 I'm not sure what you are trying to prove by posting the same email again and again over a period of several days without any comment, but could you please at least respect the mods request that you don't post people's email addresses in the open forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Branch Posted July 2, 2010 Share #56 Posted July 2, 2010 It seems that forum members could be correct and that Leica could be correct. It all depends on the set of assumptions adopted. In this thread I get the impression that the assumptions relate solely to Circle of Confusion size with some reference to viewing distance. However in some of the early literature on this subject, including that published by Leica, one of the key assumptions made is that prints, (It is always prints!), would be viewed from the vantage point that gave the “correct” perspective. This is defined in terms of the focal length of the taking lens and the degree of magnification of the viewed print relative to the negative. Thus objects in the print will, if viewed “correctly”, subtend the same angle to the eye of the observer as the object photographed did to the entry pupil of the lens. This implies that prints made with the same magnification and the same focal length camera lens, regardless of the negative size, will be viewed from the same distance. An M9 print will be larger than an M8 print but for a given lens and the same print magnification using this set of assumptions the viewing distance “should” be the same. Therefore Leica are correct? However another possible assumption is that prints will always be viewed from a “standard” distance; sometimes take to be as little as 20cm – in those days prints were small! If this is the assumption being made then Leica is certainly not correct. There are many other potentially confusing assumptions. It is true that if a normal photograph, i.e. not a macro, is taken on an M8 with say a 35mm lens at say f4 and the same photograph is taken from the same position with a 50mm lens at f4 on an M9, i.e. near enough the same angle of view, then, whatever assumption is made about viewing distance, the picture taken with the M8 will exhibit greater Depth of Field. Precisely how much is virtually impossible to say or calculate because of the many factors involved including Pupil Magnification, MTF characteristics etc. The markings on the lens are at best only an approximate guide and should be treated as such. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted July 2, 2010 Share #57 Posted July 2, 2010 ... one of the key assumptions made is that prints [...] would be viewed from the vantage point that gave the “correct” perspective. [...] Therefore Leica are correct? Yes. But that's an entirely preposterous assumption to begin with. No-one looks at prints that way, and it wouldn't make any sense anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted July 2, 2010 Share #58 Posted July 2, 2010 The markings on the lens are at best only an approximate guide and should be treated as such. This much is true, film or digital, M8 or M9. I find that actually trying something, using your own capturing and viewing methods and preferences, is all that matters. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted July 3, 2010 Share #59 Posted July 3, 2010 The markings on the lens are at best only an approximate guide and should be treated as such. Bingo! Its better to have something as a guide than nothing, how you then use it and adjust your interpretation of it depends on your own specific requirements. 'Accuracy' is not a word that I would use with dof scales - I prefer 'Viability'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted July 3, 2010 Share #60 Posted July 3, 2010 Bingo! Its better to have something as a guide than nothing, how you then use it and adjust your interpretation of it depends on your own specific requirements. 'Accuracy' is not a word that I would use with dof scales - I prefer 'Viability'. So, I guess you agree with post above yours. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.