I use Fujifilm XT-5 with APS-C 40 MP sense and a few lenses.
For the purposes of this question I will stick to my 50 mm lens.
I shoot mainly tabletop type stuff, product style, indoors, mainly with strobes but sometimes daylight or RGBs.
Usually at between 1 to 2 metres (small room/studio) from my subject and I need maximum DoF for my style with DoF of up 20 to 30 cm.
My preferred style is to get maximum DoF within the constraints of those shooting parameters and will provide some background as to where I am with this, my plans going forward and then pose some questions which I hope that those with more experience and knowledge than I, will be able to answer in clear simple English.
ChatGPT provides some interesting replies and references/links to follow, but I find that if you challenge it enough, it will change its mind to suit the question, and then provide different answers to suit. Half the problem, as always, is to frame the question correctly, and I hope to do that here.
Here then is the lead up to the question so you may be able to understand the question, or indeed if I am posing the correct question.
1. Go wider, say 23 mm XF. Not good. Too much distortion.
2. Stop down to a smaller aperture. Limited. My tests with my XF lenses invariably give best results af f/5.6 or f/8 and sometimes f/11. Smaller than that at f/16 or f/22 give more CA and edge un-sharpness than I wish to impose on my 40 MP sensor.
3. Move further back with say my 90 mm XF lens, shoot wider than I need and then crop in.
Limitations: (1) the physical size of my “studio.” (2) I am not utilising the full size of sensor.
4. Focus bracketing and stacking.
The XT-5 does a marvellous job of focus bracketing which I use a lot.
Photoshop, unfortunately is cumbersome at this and not that good.
Helicon Focus is way better but also has limitations.
Rendering method A is useless to me
Rendering method B and C provide useable results but each introduces different artefacts, depending on the complexity of overlap objects, DoF, and edge of the items being photographed.
I have hit my limits here, discovering the existence of focus breathing, which I never knew was a thing.
5. Tilt lens for 45 degree angled down shots.
Now, Fujifilm do not make this in the XF range. If they did, I would be happy to splash out and explore those limits.
6. Propriety/other brand Tilt or Tilt-Shift lenses such at TTartisan and 7Artisan have variable reviews with respect to build quality and optics.
That leads me to my next challenge....
7…… lens adapters that would allow me look for full frame or older Medium Format lenses, for example F-mount to XF mount, V mount to XF mount or Mamiya 645 mount to XF mount.
(which would open up a whole new world or rabbit hole of vintage lenses but that is another story!)
I could look at those from Kinor or Fotodiox for example.
I shoot manual mode anyway so loss of all electronic AF and exposure settings would not be a handicap.
That leads me into the torrid world of crop factors, equivalent focal lengths and angles of view, which my 67 year old brain seems to have some trouble getting to grips with.
What I understand so far is that a 50 mm lens is always a 50 mm lens, whichever format you use, but am not sure how to apply this in the real world. Mainly because angles of view, image circles and different size sensors come into play, and that is where my attention starts to drift…
Of course I could go out and buy a whole selection of adaptors and 2nd hand lenses and do the lab-work, but ideally I would like this proof of concept to be done for under 1,000 AUD.
What I need to understand is this…..
With my 50 mm lens at given distance, say x metre from my subject if I can fill the frame/crop sensor for a 600 mm wide subject….
Which focal length lens would I choose from a different format to cover the same 600 mm wide subject?
Which Mamiya 645 would I look for? Around 40-50 mm or 80 mm or, as ChatGPT initially said around 220 mm?
Which V mount would I look for?
Which focal length full frame lens eg Nikor F mount or Canon E mount would do the same thing?
Any simple answers would be appreciated.
(of course there are other unspoken questions, but this would be a good start)
As to whether a MF Mamiya lens would have any effect on your DOF issues, the answer in no. At a given aperture and focal length you aren’t going to get any different DOF by using a lens designed for a larger system, and diffraction blur will come into play at essentially the very same apertures.
Your best bet for increasing depth of focus with your tabletop subjects is to work out the focal length that gives you the angle of view you want and then use focus stacking.
I don't know what Chat is doing but to echo Dan's post. A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens (and you already said that). So use any 50mm lens and it will give you the same FOV as a native 50mm lens. The discussion around equivalent FOV ONLY comes into play when combined with the different sensor/film size for that lens and it's system. So to re-iterate; any 50mm 645/66/69 medium format (MF) lens (or full frame lens) will give you the same FOV as your own native Fuji APSC 50mm lens.
The advantage/alternative to using an MF lens is the large image circle it will project. This is what allows tilt or shift adapters to be made for an APSC or FF system so that the edge or corner is still covered when the lens is shifted.
I don't do a lot of focus stacking but when I do I use PS and don't have any issues with it. To speed it up I created an action to stack, align and blend the layers. Perhaps you could share your steps. Focus breathing should be taken care of in PS as part of this.
As to whether a MF Mamiya lens would have any effect on your DOF issues, the answer in no. At a given aperture and focal length you aren’t going to get any different DOF by using a lens designed for a larger system, and diffraction blur will come into play at essentially the very same apertures.
Your best bet for increasing depth of focus with your tabletop subjects is to work out the focal length that gives you the angle of view you want and then use focus stacking.
mcbroomf wrote:
I don't know what Chat is doing but to echo Dan's post. A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens (and you already said that). So use any 50mm lens and it will give you the same FOV as a native 50mm lens. The discussion around equivalent FOV ONLY comes into play when combined with the different sensor/film size for that lens and it's system. So to re-iterate; any 50mm 645/66/69 medium format (MF) lens (or full frame lens) will give you the same FOV as your own native Fuji APSC 50mm lens.
The advantage/alternative to using an MF lens is the large image circle it will project. This is what allows tilt or shift adapters to be made for an APSC or FF system so that the edge or corner is still covered when the lens is shifted....Show more →
Yes thanks.
That was my thinking. A larger image circle would have less risk of vignetting and distortion.
And if I understand you correctly, am I correct in saying that if I choose a Tilt Shit adapter from Mamiya 645 to XF mount, I need only look for a roughly 55 mm Mamiya Sekor C and not a longer focal length?
That was my thinking. A larger image circle would have less risk of vignetting and distortion.
And if I understand you correctly, am I correct in saying that if I choose a Tilt Shit adapter from Mamiya 645 to XF mount, I need only look for a roughly 55 mm Mamiya Sekor C and not a longer focal length?
A TS adapter can be useful for some tabletop photography and can (but won’t necessarily) resolve the depth of field issues. But, unless I hear more about specifically what you are trying to do (subject, use of the photos, etc.) that is probably overkill for you, and a focus bracketing solution will be simpler and will work great with standard Fujifilm lenses.
Can you articulate why you need a TS lens/adapter? If it is to minimize vignetting, distortion, etc., that is not generally why people would “go there.”
(Some people do use a TS for things like food photography, where they want to shoot “across” the plate but have everything on the plate in focus. The folks I know who do that kind of work like to use longer lenses and shoot from a greater distance.)
mcbroomf wrote:
I don't do a lot of focus stacking but when I do I use PS and don't have any issues with it. To speed it up I created an action to stack, align and blend the layers. Perhaps you could share your steps. Focus breathing should be taken care of in PS as part of this.
That is correct, my workflow as well
Scripts, load into stack, find and load files into layers. then align and blend layers. Takes longer than Helicon.
Helicon has more options wrt rendering options and radius and threshold choices.
For deep stacking each rendering option gives different artefacts which I hope to be able to avoid with Tilt lens options
I'm not sure why you are using so many frames. What F-stop are you using? I stop down to F11/F16 routinely (full frame) to minimize frames. And to re-iterate, PS and I'm pretty sure Helicon etc change the magnification of the frames to match, to compensate for focus breathing. What kind of artifacts are you getting? Perhaps you could post some examples. A rail system changes the image size and PS etc has to compensate.
And yes, the 55mm lens is close enough (if there is no 50mm lens). You'll have to search or ask questions about specific older MF lenses to ensure you get a "good" lens. Perhaps buy with an option to return if it doesn't meet your requirements.
If your subjects are not moving, I still would choose to focus stack. You can automatic that process. It works with normal Fujifilm lenses, and it is simple and straightforward.
If you have tried to get enough DOF by stopping down and that doesn’t work AND you are dead set against focus stacking, then your only remaining options would seem to be a tilt-shift lens. You would use the same focal length that you would use if you were working with your native Fujifilm lenses, so something in the 50-90mm range. (You only “convert” focal lenghts to their angle of view equivalents if your SENSOR is larger or smaller then your starting point. So if you like a Fujifilm 90mm lens, you’d use a 90mm lens whether it was originally designed for full-frame, miniMF, 645, or other format.)
I hope that what I’m about to write doesn’t offend you, but I’m going to take the chance and say it. I apologize in advance if I’m wrong. It sounds like you are trying to do some things that you don’t really quite understand, and I suspect that is leading you into some dead ends and wrong turns.
A tilt shift solution can work, but it isn’t perfect either and you’d want to understand the pluses and minuses of that option. For example, if your subjects are relatively flat — like a plate of food might be — then the TS lens will let you tilt the plane of focus to align with the top surface of your subject. Note that autofocus won’t work here, so you’ll be manually focusing, and that it a bit trickier with TS. Also note that if you subject isn’t roughly a flat plane — think of, for example, a square box — the TS solution doesn’t work as well if at all. (Here the focus bracketing solution will work.)
Good luck.
ChrisB-XT5 wrote:
Hi Dan
The aim is to get everything in focus front to back over a table top depth of between 20 to 30 cm without having to focus stack.
Usually I operate at between 1 and 2 metres.
Usually use XF 50 mm or my XF 90 mm.
Flat lays are no problem.
Looking down at the scene at 45 degrees or so or horizontal shoots mean my DoF is limited by camera to subject distance, lens selection, and f-stop.
So yes food photography is a good analogy athough I shoot more product style/cosmetic things.
In camera focus bracketing in the XT-5 is good, but focus breathing artefacts is what I am hoping to avoid with a Tilt option.
My focus stacks can run between 20 - 90 frames depending on the XT-5 settings.
Question 1: which focal length Medium format of Full Frame length are equivalent to my 50 mm?
That has already been answered, thanks.
Question 2: I am not sure if Tilt shift will totally fix the problem.
I will order Keith Coopers book and revisit his videos.
(The other option is rail systems which might be cheaper and will eliminate focus breathing but that is a whole 'nother story.)
gdanmitchell wrote:
If your subjects are not moving, I still would choose to focus stack. You can automatic that process. It works with normal Fujifilm lenses, and it is simple and straightforward.
If you have tried to get enough DOF by stopping down and that doesn’t work AND you are dead set against focus stacking, then your only remaining options would seem to be a tilt-shift lens. You would use the same focal length that you would use if you were working with your native Fujifilm lenses, so something in the 50-90mm range. (You only “convert” focal lenghts to their angle of view equivalents if your SENSOR is larger or smaller then your starting point. So if you like a Fujifilm 90mm lens, you’d use a 90mm lens whether it was originally designed for full-frame, miniMF, 645, or other format.)
I hope that what I’m about to write doesn’t offend you, but I’m going to take the chance and say it. I apologize in advance if I’m wrong. It sounds like you are trying to do some things that you don’t really quite understand, and I suspect that is leading you into some dead ends and wrong turns.
A tilt shift solution can work, but it isn’t perfect either and you’d want to understand the pluses and minuses of that option. For example, if your subjects are relatively flat — like a plate of food might be — then the TS lens will let you tilt the plane of focus to align with the top surface of your subject. Note that autofocus won’t work here, so you’ll be manually focusing, and that it a bit trickier with TS. Also note that if you subject isn’t roughly a flat plane — think of, for example, a square box — the TS solution doesn’t work as well if at all. (Here the focus bracketing solution will work.)
Good luck.
Yes thanks Dan.
No offence at all, all feedback is useful.
That's why I ask the questions!
This is trial of concept that I want to explore with some affordable adaptor and lens.
e.g. Kipon/Photodiox adapter and Mamiya 645.
If it doesn't work out then I have learnt something, and not lost too much
If it does work, it will add another arrow to my quiver so to speak, and I might want to look into it further.
At present I only work indoors under controlled studio conditions, but a tilt shift would be helpful if I were to go into the big outdoors and need to shoot moving foliage etc.
Thanks for the input regarding focal lengths, that seems to be the consensus that I am hearing.
I understand the limitations, including that it might not totally eliminate my use of Helicon Focus.
In the meantime I have ordered Keith's Cooper's book to see what else I can learn.
gdanmitchell wrote:
If your subjects are not moving, I still would choose to focus stack. You can automatic that process. It works with normal Fujifilm lenses, and it is simple and straightforward.
If you have tried to get enough DOF by stopping down and that doesn’t work AND you are dead set against focus stacking, then your only remaining options would seem to be a tilt-shift lens. You would use the same focal length that you would use if you were working with your native Fujifilm lenses, so something in the 50-90mm range. (You only “convert” focal lenghts to their angle of view equivalents if your SENSOR is larger or smaller then your starting point. So if you like a Fujifilm 90mm lens, you’d use a 90mm lens whether it was originally designed for full-frame, miniMF, 645, or other format.)
I hope that what I’m about to write doesn’t offend you, but I’m going to take the chance and say it. I apologize in advance if I’m wrong. It sounds like you are trying to do some things that you don’t really quite understand, and I suspect that is leading you into some dead ends and wrong turns.
A tilt shift solution can work, but it isn’t perfect either and you’d want to understand the pluses and minuses of that option. For example, if your subjects are relatively flat — like a plate of food might be — then the TS lens will let you tilt the plane of focus to align with the top surface of your subject. Note that autofocus won’t work here, so you’ll be manually focusing, and that it a bit trickier with TS. Also note that if you subject isn’t roughly a flat plane — think of, for example, a square box — the TS solution doesn’t work as well if at all. (Here the focus bracketing solution will work.)
Good luck.
Yes thanks Dan.
No offence at all, all feedback is useful.
That's why I ask the questions!
This is trial of concept that I want to explore with some affordable adaptor and lens.
e.g. Kipon/Photodiox adapter and Mamiya 645.
If it doesn't work out then I have learnt something, and not lost too much
If it does work, it will add another arrow to my quiver so to speak, and I might want to look into it further.
At present I only work indoors under controlled studio conditions, but a tilt shift would be helpful if I were to go into the big outdoors and need to shoot moving foliage etc.
Thanks for the input regarding focal lengths, that seems to be the consensus that I am hearing.
I understand the limitations, including that it might not totally eliminate my use of Helicon Focus.
In the meantime I have ordered Keith's Cooper's book to see what else I can learn.
gdanmitchell wrote:
If your subjects are not moving, I still would choose to focus stack. You can automatic that process. It works with normal Fujifilm lenses, and it is simple and straightforward.
If you have tried to get enough DOF by stopping down and that doesn’t work AND you are dead set against focus stacking, then your only remaining options would seem to be a tilt-shift lens. You would use the same focal length that you would use if you were working with your native Fujifilm lenses, so something in the 50-90mm range. (You only “convert” focal lenghts to their angle of view equivalents if your SENSOR is larger or smaller then your starting point. So if you like a Fujifilm 90mm lens, you’d use a 90mm lens whether it was originally designed for full-frame, miniMF, 645, or other format.)
I hope that what I’m about to write doesn’t offend you, but I’m going to take the chance and say it. I apologize in advance if I’m wrong. It sounds like you are trying to do some things that you don’t really quite understand, and I suspect that is leading you into some dead ends and wrong turns.
A tilt shift solution can work, but it isn’t perfect either and you’d want to understand the pluses and minuses of that option. For example, if your subjects are relatively flat — like a plate of food might be — then the TS lens will let you tilt the plane of focus to align with the top surface of your subject. Note that autofocus won’t work here, so you’ll be manually focusing, and that it a bit trickier with TS. Also note that if you subject isn’t roughly a flat plane — think of, for example, a square box — the TS solution doesn’t work as well if at all. (Here the focus bracketing solution will work.)
Good luck.
Yes thanks Dan.
No offence at all, all feedback is useful.
That's why I ask the questions!
This is trial of concept that I want to explore with some affordable adaptor and lens.
e.g. Kipon/Photodiox adapter and Mamiya 645.
If it doesn't work out then I have learnt something, and not lost too much
If it does work, it will add another arrow to my quiver so to speak, and I might want to look into it further.
At present I only work indoors under controlled studio conditions, but a tilt shift would be helpful if I were to go into the big outdoors and need to shoot moving foliage etc.
Thanks for the input regarding focal lengths, that seems to be the consensus that I am hearing.
I understand the limitations, including that it might not totally eliminate my use of Helicon Focus.
In the meantime I have ordered Keith's Cooper's book to see what else I can learn.
mcbroomf wrote:
I'm not sure why you are using so many frames. What F-stop are you using? I stop down to F11/F16 routinely (full frame) to minimize frames. And to re-iterate, PS and I'm pretty sure Helicon etc change the magnification of the frames to match, to compensate for focus breathing. What kind of artifacts are you getting? Perhaps you could post some examples. A rail system changes the image size and PS etc has to compensate.
And yes, the 55mm lens is close enough (if there is no 50mm lens). You'll have to search or ask questions about specific older MF lenses to ensure you get a "good" lens. Perhaps buy with an option to return if it doesn't meet your requirements....Show more →
Thank you!
I am getting edge blurring artefacts especially where there significant distance between subjects, due to the focus breathing effect. The goal is to eliminate focus breathing, either with Tilt lens or adaptors, and so eliminate that artefact.
Thanks for the tip about the rail systems. I will have dig deeper into that and see if that is viable, practically and or economically.
I see the same issues when including something very close (eg a large bouquet of flowers wanting to get front to back focus) but I don't think (in my case) it's lens breathing. It appears to be the fact that the OOF section of the flowers in front (on the rear focused file) is larger (because it's blurred) so it protrudes over the in focus elements behind. The best way I've found is to stop down to small apertures, but some touch up is required with varying success.
ChrisB-XT5 wrote:
At present I only work indoors under controlled studio conditions, but a tilt shift would be helpful if I were to go into the big outdoors and need to shoot moving foliage etc.
Yes. And no. ;-)
Let’s say that you are photographing a landscape scene with some close wildflowers, a distant mountain, and a tall tree at one side of the frame. Yes, the TS lens means that you won’t have issues with the tree moving between frames…
… but the TS does not solve the focus problem for you in that case.
With that subject you would tilt the lens so that the bottom of the frame is focused on the close subject and the upper part of the frame on the distant mountain. But that darned tree is neither as close as the flowers nor as distant as the mountain, and it is the same distance from your camera at both the top and bottom of the frame. See the problem there?
The best you can do is hope that by tilting AND using a small aperture you can somehow bring ech of those elements within the DOF range, at least to be sharp enough.
The places where I like to use a TS are scenes where the distances vary uniformly across the frame from bottom to top. For example, they can work really well with things like seascapes and desert landscapes without trees.
And there are ways to deal with the motion of trees and so forth in stacks. Basically that tree is probably going to be focused in one of the stacked frames, so it can be included without combining multiple versions of the tree in different positions. Similarly, if you are photographing subjects like surf, often the whole wave will fit in a single frame, and the other stacked frames will including more distant or closer moving subjects.
You may be catching on that sometimes there is no one perfect solution, and that understanding a range of solutions will help you deal with these challenges… more that looking for a single solution.
