Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       5       6       end
  

Archive 2018 · Can you get shallower Depth of Field on FF 35mm than 44 X 33 sensors?

  
 
alundeb
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Can you get shallower Depth of Field on FF 35mm than 44 X 33 sensors?


molson wrote:
F/2.8 on the GFX is actually equivalent to f/2 on the miniature-format cameras if you use the same aspect ratio.


I love that name, it makes the results from them even more impressing



Oct 23, 2018 at 07:55 AM
Rand47
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Can you get shallower Depth of Field on FF 35mm than 44 X 33 sensors?


gdanmitchell wrote:
;-)

Preferences vary, for sure, but that's sort of how I feel about super narrow DOF. Honestly, in most portrait situations you are better off using a slightly smaller aperture in many cases and then using factors including focal length, camera-to-subject distance, subject-to-background distance, the nature of that background, and lighting to produce the desired separation.

Notice that I did not write "always."

Not saying that there is no place for super narrow DOF — just that it is possible to have too little DOF in many cases. And, to loop back to my original post above...

... this just means that each photographer needs
...Show more

Yup.... , and from my perspective the move to faster and faster lenses was also so that one could see what the heck they were doing with an SLR’s prism finder, especially in low light, and then “of course” the ability to even get an image with fast (ASA 400) film in low light. All somewhat laughable today.

You’re absolutely correct about the impacts of camera to subject distance, subject to background distance, and focal length - all to control how the subject appears, is rendered, vis-a-vis the “apparent” depth in the image.

Rand




Oct 23, 2018 at 09:11 AM
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Can you get shallower Depth of Field on FF 35mm than 44 X 33 sensors?


Rand47 wrote:
For Pete's sake... how narrow would one want to go? As it is, shooting head and shoulders portraits with the 110 f/2 on the GFX, wide open, is way too narrow DOF to produce a pleasing image.

It's fun to play with math, it's another thing altogether in the real world of making images. One of the challenges of using my medium format GFX as compared to my X-H1 is getting "enough" DOF even w/ the f/4 lenses wide open!

Rand


I agree.

I see Steve mentioned one type of portraiture where thin DOF is helpful - 3/4 to full body portraits where you want to blow out the background. That's become trendy. Usually the weapon of choice is a 200mm f2.0 on FF. It can be helpful, but I think it is overdone. To me, the beauty of full length portraiture is to place the subject in the environment. Sometimes the background can be kept in focus, other times it can be slightly OOF but still you get a hint of the environment.

When I shot MF and LF film, the battle was always to get enough DOF. I tend to use my eyes instead of math to determine if a camera and lens combination meets my needs.



Oct 23, 2018 at 09:34 AM
Rand47
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Can you get shallower Depth of Field on FF 35mm than 44 X 33 sensors?


Steve Spencer wrote:
Hi Rand,

Different people want different things. Some like really shallow DOF for head and shoulder portraits. Some like using smaller f/2 lenses and yet have DOF performance close to f/1.4 lenses on FF35. Some like shooting at ten to fifteen feet and still getting a quite blurred background (something that a really wide aperture is useful for). Personally, I have little use for the first of these options, but lots of use for the latter two options. So a lot depends how what you shoot and how you shooting but for me considering FF35 lenses for my GFX was
...Show more

Hi Steve,

No argument from me on any of what you wrote. All I’m saying is that with the GF lenses I own (23, 32-64, 110 and 120) I have no problem at all achieving very shallow DOF if desired. I can’t imagine what my 50mm Mitakon 0.95 would look like if I adapted it to the GFX.

Rand




Oct 23, 2018 at 09:39 AM
highdesertmesa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Can you get shallower Depth of Field on FF 35mm than 44 X 33 sensors?


Sauseschritt wrote:
I'm sorry, but thats not correct. 44x33 is merely a ~0.8 crop. A f2.8 on 44x33 is around f2.2 equiv for full frame in respect to depth of field.


---------------------------------------------

molson wrote:
F/2.8 on the GFX is actually equivalent to f/2 on the miniature-format cameras if you use the same aspect ratio.


As you can see, I'm not the best scientific mind on this forum However, I think the point stands that in my general experience shooting the same subjects with both formats and close to equivalent lenses, I need f1.4 on FF to get the same look I get on 44x33 with f2.8 – at least close to MFD. The further I get back from MFD, the less pronounced the bokeh is on both formats, making it more difficult to see differences.



Oct 23, 2018 at 09:47 AM
highdesertmesa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Can you get shallower Depth of Field on FF 35mm than 44 X 33 sensors?


dmacmillan wrote:
I agree.

I see Steve mentioned one type of portraiture where thin DOF is helpful - 3/4 to full body portraits where you want to blow out the background. That's become trendy. Usually the weapon of choice is a 200mm f2.0 on FF. It can be helpful, but I think it is overdone. To me, the beauty of full length portraiture is to place the subject in the environment. Sometimes the background can be kept in focus, other times it can be slightly OOF but still you get a hint of the environment.

When I shot MF and LF film,
...Show more

Back in the 1990s, I loved using the Nikon 180 f/2.8 ED-IF for portraits. I think the GF 250 @ f/4 comes very close.



Oct 23, 2018 at 09:52 AM
highdesertmesa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Can you get shallower Depth of Field on FF 35mm than 44 X 33 sensors?


alundeb wrote:
I love that name, it makes the results from them even more impressing


Fujifilm themselves actually used the miniature-format term once – can't remember if it was a press release or if it was a quote from someone at the company. Cracked me up.



Oct 23, 2018 at 09:55 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · Can you get shallower Depth of Field on FF 35mm than 44 X 33 sensors?


alundeb quoted:
... miniature-format cameras...


THAT isn't going to go over well! ;-)



Oct 23, 2018 at 10:51 AM
alundeb
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · Can you get shallower Depth of Field on FF 35mm than 44 X 33 sensors?


gdanmitchell wrote:
THAT isn't going to go over well! ;-)


I don't always agree with molson, but his wit often makes my forum day.



Oct 23, 2018 at 11:31 AM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · Can you get shallower Depth of Field on FF 35mm than 44 X 33 sensors?


Rand47 wrote:
Hi Steve,

No argument from me on any of what you wrote. All I’m saying is that with the GF lenses I own (23, 32-64, 110 and 120) I have no problem at all achieving very shallow DOF if desired. I can’t imagine what my 50mm Mitakon 0.95 would look like if I adapted it to the GFX.

Rand



Hi Rand,

Yes, you can get very nice shallow depth of field with the GF lenses, but if Fuji makes the rumoured 75 f/1.4 I think people will find a use for that too. The 75 f/1.4 would be a lot like the latest Leica Noctilux, which by the way was made after digital and as a rangefinder lens certainly wasn't made to make the viewfinder brighter. Similarly the Leica 75 f/1.25 which came out this year wasn't about viewfinder brightness or shutter speed with film. There is a genuine desire by some to have lenses with shallower DOF capabilities. I totally agree it can be way over done but it is a tool I like to have available and it is nice to have if not over used. For example, on Sony I shoot the CV 40 f/1.2 a lot for portraits. I typically shoot it at f/2, but I do appreciate having the f/1.2 for an occasional shot. I feel the same about my Canon FD 55 f/1.2 Asph on my GFX. I typically shoot it at f/2.8, but I like that I have the capability to open it up for some shots and I try not to over use that.

What your 50 Mitakon f/0.95 would look like depends on the aspect ratio you would choose and the image circle of the lens. Assuming that it has about a 50mm image circle, if you crop to 3 X 2 it would look like a 45 f/0.9 (not all that different from how it looks on FF35). If you crop to 4 X 5 or 4 X 3 it would look about like a 40mm f/0.8, so it would appear wider in focal length and wider in aperture than on FF35. It would be noticeable but not a huge effect. If you cropped to square, however, it would look about like a 35mm f/0.7 on FF35, and I am not at all sure what that would look like. I think it would be a pretty unique look, however, and if I had the lens I would play with it and see if I might like it.



Oct 23, 2018 at 12:01 PM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · Can you get shallower Depth of Field on FF 35mm than 44 X 33 sensors?


Sauseschritt wrote:
I'm sorry, but thats not correct. 44x33 is merely a ~0.8 crop. A f2.8 on 44x33 is around f2.2 equiv for full frame in respect to depth of field.


Well the whole point of this thread is that crop, resolution, and equivalent aperture is dependent on the image circle of the lens and the aspect ratio of the shot. Depending on those two variables the crop can be anything from .73 to almost none at all. So an f/2.8 lens can be an equivalent of anything from f/2 to f/2.8. If we fix the image circle as covering the whole sensor for 44 X 33, however, the range is smaller but can still be anything between f/2 and f/2.4.



Oct 23, 2018 at 12:07 PM
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · Can you get shallower Depth of Field on FF 35mm than 44 X 33 sensors?


molson wrote:
F/2.8 on the GFX is actually equivalent to f/2 on the miniature-format cameras if you use the same aspect ratio.

I see the term "miniature-format" has caught some attention. I hate to admit it, but I remember when that was a common term associated with 35mm. I attended Art Center College of Design in the early '70s and we weren't allowed to shoot 35mm the first two semesters. We had to prove a certain level of technical proficiency first, since getting a good, sharp image with acceptable grain and dynamic range was a lot harder compared to LF and MF.

American Tourist Multiple was the first "full frame" 35mm camera. To them "full frame" meant motion picture Academy aperture, or 18x24. It was Leitz (Leica) that popularized the "lazy 8" or horizontal 24x36 frame. VistaVision movies like "The 10 Commandmants" were filmed with 8 perf horizontal frames. It provided better IQ than anamorphic (Cinemascope) processes.

The first 35mm camera, the Tourist Multiple, didn't catch on because when it was introduced in 1913, it cost $175.00. That would be $4,000.00 in today's money.



Oct 23, 2018 at 01:04 PM
highdesertmesa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · Can you get shallower Depth of Field on FF 35mm than 44 X 33 sensors?


Steve Spencer wrote:
Hi Rand,

Yes, you can get very nice shallow depth of field with the GF lenses, but if Fuji makes the rumoured 75 f/1.4 I think people will find a use for that too. The 75 f/1.4 would be a lot like the latest Leica Noctilux, which by the way was made after digital and as a rangefinder lens certainly wasn't made to make the viewfinder brighter. Similarly the Leica 75 f/1.25 which came out this year wasn't about viewfinder brightness or shutter speed with film. There is a genuine desire by some to have lenses with shallower DOF capabilities.
...Show more

All the rumors I've read mention a GF 80 f/1.4, not a 75. Either way, it's still a unicorn as of right now.

Old link from 2017:
https://www.fujirumors.com/fujinon-gf-80mm-f1-4-fujifilm-gfx-2018-new-source/




Oct 23, 2018 at 02:06 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · Can you get shallower Depth of Field on FF 35mm than 44 X 33 sensors?


I see the term "miniature-format" has caught some attention. I hate to admit it, but I remember when that was a common term associated with 35mm...

I thought of that, too, when I saw it. I'm pretty sure I've heard it used for other oddball things like those old miniature "spy cameras" that you used to be able to order from the back pages of photo magazines.

In the end, it hardly matters what term we use — though an accurate-ish one is good, if possible — as long as everyone understands what it refers to and what it doesn't refer to.

We could call them pea, bean, carrot, potato, and rutabaga formats... and as long as we all knew what they referred to it would work.

No. That's not a suggestion. ;-)

Dan



Oct 23, 2018 at 03:15 PM
DannyBurkPhoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · Can you get shallower Depth of Field on FF 35mm than 44 X 33 sensors?


I've seen it referred as "miniature format" a number of times in older references, in comparison to MF and LF. It's not a new term, just much less common than it used to be.


Oct 23, 2018 at 03:21 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · Can you get shallower Depth of Field on FF 35mm than 44 X 33 sensors?


35mm film was known as small format, in some circles.


Oct 23, 2018 at 03:24 PM
amade1974
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · Can you get shallower Depth of Field on FF 35mm than 44 X 33 sensors?


how much does lens design affect the depth of field? My relatively uniformed guess would be that if you had the same type of lens (double gauss, plasmat, etc) the depth of field would be comparable, but I do recall reading somewhere (either Puts Leica columns, or Nasse's Zeiss documents, or somewhere else on the internet (thus, it must be true)) that the transition in contrast/delineation in some lenses is what gives some lenses a special status (sorry I can't cite papers.... have read way too much)....So, a lens especially designed to rapidly transition from sharp to unsharp/undefined may have shallower depth of field than other, more traditional designs?



Oct 24, 2018 at 08:40 AM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · Can you get shallower Depth of Field on FF 35mm than 44 X 33 sensors?


amade1974 wrote:
how much does lens design affect the depth of field? My relatively uniformed guess would be that if you had the same type of lens (double gauss, plasmat, etc) the depth of field would be comparable, but I do recall reading somewhere (either Puts Leica columns, or Nasse's Zeiss documents, or somewhere else on the internet (thus, it must be true)) that the transition in contrast/delineation in some lenses is what gives some lenses a special status (sorry I can't cite papers.... have read way too much)....So, a lens especially designed to rapidly transition from sharp to unsharp/undefined may have
...Show more

Lens design certainly affects the appearance of the out of focus area. Both the look of stuff that is considerably out of focus and the look of the transition zone between what is in focus and what is out of focus. As such it could quite reasonably be said that it affect apparent depth of field. I am less sure that we can make any useful predictions about whether a rapid transition from sharp to unsharp (or a slow transition) will lead to more of less depth of field. Take for example two very different 50mm lenses that I have used extensively, the Leica M 50 f/2 AA and the Zeiss Planar 50 f/1.4. At f/2 the Leica has a very quick transition from focus to unsharp, in contrast Zeiss has a vey slow transition even at f/2. Which has less DOF? Well you might say the Leica because it get unsharp so quickly, but in my experience it isn't that simple. Whereas the Leica goes from sharp to unsharp more quickly than the Zeiss, it actually starts getting unsharp a little later and goes totally unsharp a little quicker than the Zeiss. So whether you think it has more or less depth of field depends on whether you are looking right before or right after than rapid transition zone. The slower transition zone of the Zeiss means that from start to finish the unsharpness is gradual and it isn't easy to pick a point and say, "there that is where it is unsharp." This is quite a bit easier with the Leica. So lens design more generally and the transition zone from sharp to unsharp in particular affect the look of the out of focus area, but I don't think it is easy to describe how that related to DOF by saying it provides more or less.



Oct 24, 2018 at 09:03 AM
Rand47
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · Can you get shallower Depth of Field on FF 35mm than 44 X 33 sensors?


" . . . and as a rangefinder lens certainly wasn't made to make the viewfinder brighter . . . "

Nor was it made because of its incredibly narrow field of focus wide open. Think, my friend, about how Leitz named this lens! It was made to "see in the dark" as it were.

The current fascination with razor thin DOF is a "post film age" phenomenon. Not to say that selective focus isn't a legitimate and lovely tool. But as Dan says, there's a lot more to it than mere large apertures.

Rand





f/0.95







f/10




Oct 24, 2018 at 10:15 AM
ZoneV
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · Can you get shallower Depth of Field on FF 35mm than 44 X 33 sensors?


Rand47 wrote:
For Pete's sake... how narrow would one want to go? As it is, shooting head and shoulders portraits with the 110 f/2 on the GFX, wide open, is way too narrow DOF to produce a pleasing image. E.g. eyes in focus, tip of nose badly out of focus. Get the nose sharp, eyes are way out. Get close enough in and you can have one freckle in focus and the next out of focus...


I do like to shoot for examle images with the full person standing in enviroment in landscape orientation. There I would like to have the option to get the background blurred, cause I do have the trees, grass, whatever in the same plane sharp to have enviroment. At the moment I can get this only with far away background and 280mm f/2, see this:

Harbor Dream Lady by Markus, auf Flickr

For this I work on my ultra-large-format camera.

Even for pure portraits I like such an look, perhaps cause I often photograph non "perfect" models where I want to get a good looking image - without Photoshop use. So I want / need to focus on the parts I like for the image, and blur parts which don´t work for my vision.
Here an test image with my prototype camera.

Portrait-Color by Markus, auf Flickr

So those medium format cameras would be interessting for me, with non native lenses. I have a lot of lenses which likely or for sure work with it. And I would be happy to have as small a DOF as possible.
But for some images I also try to get as much DOF as possible, for example for microphotography with the 20x Mitutoyo microscope lens.






Oct 24, 2018 at 10:29 AM
1       2      
3
       4       5       6       end




FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       5       6       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.