jip Posted November 16, 2016 Share #1 Posted November 16, 2016 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 16, 2016 Posted November 16, 2016 Hi jip, Take a look here Leica S depth of field compared to Fullframe. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
01af Posted November 16, 2016 Share #2 Posted November 16, 2016 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted November 17, 2016 Share #3 Posted November 17, 2016 Interesting to see these comparisons, thanks. Useful to me! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jip Posted November 22, 2016 Author Share #4 Posted November 22, 2016 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jip Posted November 22, 2016 Author Share #5 Posted November 22, 2016 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgrayson3 Posted November 22, 2016 Share #6 Posted November 22, 2016 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.