A difficult question - shooting square

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Tired after a long walk, two beers, and generally disgusted with this thread, I throw a hammer into the machine. So shoot me. Who in practical, every day life gives a damn of these messy metrics? Have any of you had had a photo rejected based on the metrics discussed? I think not!

 

Drifting now - in the Sixties and Seventies selected press photographers in final competitions were required to print  on 16' x 20" paper. Floating to fit the full frame on the paper.

 

Considering our practices at the time our prints would likely send a contemporary Leica compulsive into fits, even if the image was made with a Leica. The outcome? No disqualification for technique. It was all about the moment.

 

FWIW, of course landscapes never made it to the competition.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Pico,

 

Your analysis is accurate & certainly appropriate.

 

What is going on (At least in part.) in this Thread, at this point in its development, is: Various people are somewhat academically analyzing various aspects of the parameters & possibilities of 2 lenses in a set of comparable situations.

 

All in fun & perhaps some insights for future consideration to be learned.

 

Each person doing what they can to add a little to the intellectual construct that is this idea.

 

Everyone gains. No one loses.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[jdlaing]

We ain't in the sixties and seventies anymore.

[Michael Geschlecht]

We ain't in the sixties and seventies anymore.

 

Hello Jim

 

I know what you are saying.

 

In some ways that is really sad.

 

Altho the 1960's & 1970's were not always the better World in all directions that some people think of.

 

But don't worry, if we all work together to re-invigorate the better parts that have somehow drifted away: We can have all of the positive that you wrote about above back & maybe even some more.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[pico]

We ain't in the sixties and seventies anymore.

 

I am.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Everybody,

 

I would say that my idea is not to live in the past but rather to: Discontinue those things from the past that are not up to what is necessary today.

 

And bring those things forward from the past that are still viable today.

 

And integrate them with what is current & what is reflective of the future. Given what is known today.

 

As an example:

The Tessar was invented in the 1890's

 

It was further developed by Leitz in the 1920's where it appeared as the 50mm, F3.5 Elmar.

 

It had many configurations over the years.

 

Among others: In the 1960's & 1970's it was produced as the 100mm, F4  Elmar for the Leicaflex.

 

It was replaced by the 100mm F2.8 Elmarit at a later date.

 

At the time that Leitz introduced the 100mm F2.8 Elmarit they said that the F2.8 lens was a better across the entire field performer.

 

BUT in the central portion of the image: The F4 lens was better.

 

The central portions of Tessar designs are generally superior when compared to their edge performance. While Gauss derivatives are generally more even over the whole field & are generally superior to Tessar designs in terms of edge performance.

 

Here it is today:

It might be interesting to take a 100mm F4 Elmar  from the 1960's & 1970's & see how the central section of that lens would create an image in a Leica SL, an M10 or with a Monochrome.

 

We might be able to bring part of the good parts of the 1960's & 1970's that people are writing about above right into the 21st Century.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael 

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Still, this thread leaves me wondering which Quetzal is meant: Pharomachrus or Euptilotis.

[pico]

And integrate them with what is current & what is reflective of the future. Given what is known today.

 

Interesting. How does the future reflect backwards to the present? Are you suggesting quantum physics reaches into the mind of lens designers or public expectations?

.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Still, this thread leaves me wondering which Quetzal is meant: Pharomachrus or Euptilotis.

 

Hello Jaap,

 

I think that for the purposes of this discussion all quetzals are equal.

 

Beside that: I don't think that this Forum would allow discrimination based on superficial differences.

 

All quetzals have the right to be treated equally.

 

How would you like it if someone used some superficial difference between you & Philipp, like which side of the Rhine River 1 of you or the other lived on, to allow you, or not allow him, to do something?

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Interesting. How does the future reflect backwards to the present? Are you suggesting quantum physics reaches into the mind of lens designers or public expectations?

.

 

Hello Pico,

 

I don't know how the future reflects back to the past.

 

I think that, like the weather, the future is better understood & prepared for by analyzing what happened yesterday to help theorize what might happen in the future. And then to combine that with what you know from now.

 

The only 2 people who I can think of who did a reasonably good job of predicting the future without also predicting a lot of what did not occur are:

 

Leonardo Da Vinci & Jules Verne.

 

There have been a number of people who have predicted all kinds of things in all types of situations. Both right & wrong.

 

But, as far as I can tell, not too many others had as large a number of better predictions in relation to not quite as good predictions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[lct]

I've figured out that if I want to shoot with the same framing I can shoot at the same distance as my Rolleiflex with its 80/2.8 lens with a 35/1.4 asph and crop the sides to square. [...] if I look at depth of field calculator and calculate the depth of focus for the 6x6 camera at 2.5 metres, they tell me that I will get .24 metre in focus [...]. However, using the 35/1.4 asph [...] the same calculator tells me that at f1.4 I would get .43 metre in focus [...]. Have I calculated anything incorrectly?

 

Yes you have i suspect because you did not take your 24 x 24mm cropping into account to calculate the CoC value which is about 0.023mm then whilst that of your Rolleiflex is about 0.055mm. On these grounds you should get more or less the same DoF if i'm not mistaken.

 

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!

 

[01af]

Then, the two respective finished photos would have the same depth of field.

 

No, they wouldn't. Instead, the photograph taken with the 35 mm lens at f/8 on the 35-mm-format camera would have more depth-of-field. For depth-of-field being equal to f/8 on the 80 mm lens, the 35 mm lens must be set to f/3.5. Then, both apertures are 10 mm wide (80/8 = 35/3.5 = 10).

 

The relation between equivalent aperture numbers is just the same as that between equivalent focal lengths: multiply or divide by the format factor (which in the case of 56 × 56 mm format vs 24 × 24 mm format is 2.33). Focal lengths are equivalent when they yield the same angle-of-view. Apertures are equivalent when they yield the same depth-of-field.

 

Sure, the photograph taken with the larger-format camera would have better image quality—that's the point of using larger image formats. But that's another cup of tea.

[adan]

Interesting, Adan.. as still owner of an excellent (and unused for years...  ) Rollei 3,5f Planar TLR... I wonder, is your comparision made with Summilux 35 on film or on FF Digital ?  Printed in which format ?

 

35 Summilux ASPH on 24 Mpixel FF digital @ f/1.4 compared to the f/2.8 Schneider Xenon on a Rollei E2 (scanned film - Tmax 100) @ f/2.8. Printed both 11" x 11" and 15" x 15" or 28cm x 28cm and 38cm x 38cm . But the difference was visible just looking at the digital files on-screen.

 

I can't speak to the 3.5 Planar @ f/3.5 - never tried one.

 

BTW - I am not arguing that FF digital cropped 24 x 24 mm cannot, in many cases, get very close to 6x6 imaging quality (or at least the perceived quality in reasonable print sizes). Just not in the OP's case, where he wants to replicate the FoV and DoF of f/2.8 with his Rollei, by using a Leica 35 f/1.4 at its largest (and weakest) aperture.

 

The 35 f/1.4 ASPH - specifically - at f/1.4 - specifically - just does not have the resolution to pull that off against an f/2.8 80mm Xenon/Planar @ f/2.8, on 6x6 film.

[luigi bertolotti]

35 Summilux ASPH on 24 Mpixel FF digital @ f/1.4 compared to the f/2.8 Schneider Xenon on a Rollei E2 (scanned film - Tmax 100) @ f/2.8. Printed both 11" x 11" and 15" x 15" or 28cm x 28cm and 38cm x 38cm . But the difference was visible just looking at the digital files on-screen.

 

Visible even ON SCREEN ?  I trust you, Adan, but this strikes me.... I never had scanned a 6x6 neg... now I strongly feel the desire to make some home test (it's about 5-6 years I don't buy a 120 film, but I know where to find them "here in town" : not sure to find here a good scan service, though...)  ; I even don't exclude to add the SuperIkonta 6x9 - Tessar 105 - to the band... (but maybe having a 6x9 scanned is even more difficult).  Frankly, after years of Mpixels and only Mpixels... I had became addicted to the feel that 120 hasn't more much to say... 

[Exodies]

false alarm

[jankap]

Yes, but you are introducing another variable. Sensor/film size. A larger format will always produce a more narrow DOF. Compare a small-sensor P&S. Sharp from your toes to the horizon, whatever you do.

 

Wait, until you have bought a 17mm f/0.5 for your MFT!

Jan

[jankap]

I think, one should look at the end product, say a paper of 1 x 1 meter.

The product in-between ist the sensor, one small and one large. 

In both cases the picture in the sensor must be enlarged to 1000mm.

In the small case 41 times, in case of the other one 17 times.

 

If we take the same COC in both cases, we are comparing kumquats with oranges.

For the large sensor one should take a bigger COC to get the same DOF in the end product.

And two pictures with each the same COC are, what we want to achieve.

Jan

[jaapv]

Wait, until you have bought a 17mm f/0.5 for your MFT!

Jan

Just you wait until this thread gets infiltrated by members of the Group f/64! 

[Michael Geschlecht]

No, they wouldn't. Instead, the photograph taken with the 35 mm lens at f/8 on the 35-mm-format camera would have more depth-of-field. For depth-of-field being equal to f/8 on the 80 mm lens, the 35 mm lens must be set to f/3.5. Then, both apertures are 10 mm wide (80/8 = 35/3.5 = 10).

 

The relation between equivalent aperture numbers is just the same as that between equivalent focal lengths: multiply or divide by the format factor (which in the case of 56 × 56 mm format vs 24 × 24 mm format is 2.33). Focal lengths are equivalent when they yield the same angle-of-view. Apertures are equivalent when they yield the same depth-of-field.

 

Sure, the photograph taken with the larger-format camera would have better image quality—that's the point of using larger image formats. But that's another cup of tea.

 

Hello 01af,

 

I think that we might be writing about "apples" compared to "bathtubs" here instead of the "bathtubs" compared to "bathtubs" that we were writing about above.

 

Please consider that in order to have the same sized quetzal, given the parameters defined above, in each of the finished prints: That means that the image of the quetzal from the 56mm X 56mm image capture surface has to be enlarged by a factor of 10 times:

 

While the image of the quetzal from the image capture surface of the 24mm X 24mm image capture surface has to be enlarged 23.3 times:

 

This also means that what had appeared as an "apparent point" measuring 1/30mm when enlarged 10X from the 56mm X 56mm image capture surface will no longer appear as an "apparent point" when enlarged from the 24mm X 24mm image capture surface because with the 23.3X enlargment: What had previously been an "apparent point" has now become a disc or blur with a diameter of 1/13mm (approximately).

 

Could you explain your disagreement with this analysis?

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[01af]

Could you explain your disagreement with this analysis?

 

There is no disagreement.