Toothwalker wrote: Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Why do you compute a DOF scenario for a 30x20-cm image viewed from a 40-cm distance, and subsequently check it by examining a blown-up portion?
Your photograph measures approximately 30x20 cm on my screen, and I think that someone with an average acuity can\'t find much wrong with the sharpness when he looks at it from a 40-cm distance. Granted, it\'s a monitor display and not a print, but then your CoC of 0.020 mm is not that critical either.
Toothwalker, those were the default parameters in DOF calculator I\'m using. I can change them to the failed print I have in my hands right now: 420mm x 280mm, watching from 400mm distance (I can put the print further away as long as my arms reach and the result won\'t change) resulting 0.014025 CoC, and the stupid formula in calculator saying that DOF should reach from 2.334m to 13.966m. However any of this doesn\'t matter: the point was that the calculator formulas assume simple lens (one element if I remember correctly), not real lens used for photography. However this typically works somehow with most of the lenses, specially very real results can be achieved with simple symmetrical lenses (e.g. rangefinder lenses, specially Biogon kind of design), but can be very different with lenses which are reverse telephoto design (e.g. Distagon). Also the \"sharpness\" is divided differently inside the \"acceptable\" DOF, for example Leica lenses typically have very sharp region in middle of DOF, and Zeiss has tried to spread the sharpness inside the DOF.
In the A3 print the tree at about 7m from camera appears to lack details and contrast compared to the tree on front of it. In this photo I would have preferred to have both trees in focus. I assumed that f/8 would be enough but seems that I should have used f/11 or even f/16. I have not used many lenses around this focal length except Nikon 28/3.5PC, Canon 28/1.8, Canon 17-40 and they would all have had enough DOF with f/8 on this scene.
For me personally the LCD monitor vs. print does not end to same results: I cannot see individual needles on the \"tree at 4m distance\" on the photo I posted above in my monitor. However on A4 printout I can see them, if I put the printout next to my monitor. Also on the A4 printout the \"about 7m tree\" does lack microcontrast and \"punch\" in the tree at 4m, where this 975px wide webthumbnail does not show much difference between the trees, but even on monitor the tree closer to \"stands out\" from the tree behind it, maybe due to smaller (micro)contrast on the tree behind.
bobring wrote:
OK, here are three from my 1DsIII and 21mm ZE. Not my best but good examples I think of a wide lens giving good results when held level, etc (no mustache distortion). Thanks, Bob
Wow, the first one was really great looking image, I can really feel being there (which is the most important criteria for me in photograph, an in which 99% of the photos fail).
Toothwalker wrote: Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Why do you compute a DOF scenario for a 30x20-cm image viewed from a 40-cm distance, and subsequently check it by examining a blown-up portion?
Your photograph measures approximately 30x20 cm on my screen, and I think that someone with an average acuity can\'t find much wrong with the sharpness when he looks at it from a 40-cm distance. Granted, it\'s a monitor display and not a print, but then your CoC of 0.020 mm is not that critical either.
Toothwalker, those were the default parameters in DOF calculator I\'m using. I can change them to the failed print I have in my hands right now: 420mm x 280mm, watching from 400mm distance (I can put the print further away as long as my arms reach and the result won\'t change) resulting 0.014025 CoC, and the stupid formula in calculator saying that DOF should reach from 2.334m to 13.966m. However any of this doesn\'t matter: the point was that the calculator formulas assume simple lens (one element if I remember correctly), not real lens used for photography. However this typically works somehow with most of the lenses, specially very real results can be achieved with simple symmetrical lenses (e.g. rangefinder lenses, specially Biogon kind of design), but can be very different with lenses which are reverse telephoto design (e.g. Distagon). Also the \"sharpness\" is divided differently inside the \"acceptable\" DOF, for example Leica lenses typically have very sharp region in middle of DOF, and Zeiss has tried to spread the sharpness inside the DOF.
In the A3 print the tree at about 7m from camera appears to lack details and contrast compared to the tree on front of it. In this photo I would have preferred to have both trees in focus. I assumed that f/8 would be enough but seems that I should have used f/11 or even f/16. I have not used many lenses around this focal length except Nikon 28/3.5PC, Canon 28/1.8, Canon 17-40 and they would all have had enough DOF with f/8 on this scene.
For me personally the LCD monitor vs. print does not end to same results: I cannot see individual needles on the \"tree at 4m distance\" on the photo I posted above in my monitor. However on A4 printout I can see them, if I put the printout next to my monitor. Also on the A4 printout the \"about 7m tree\" does lack microcontrast and \"punch\" in the tree at 4m, where this 975px wide webthumbnail does not show much difference between the trees, but even on monitor the tree closer to \"stands out\" from the tree behind it, maybe due to smaller (micro)contrast on the tree behind.
bobring wrote:
OK, here are three from my 1DsIII and 21mm ZE. Not my best but good examples I think of a wide lens giving good results when held level, etc (no mustache distortion). Thanks, Bob
Wow, the first one was really great looking image, I can really being there (which is the most important criteria for me in photograph, an in which 99% of the photos fail).
Toothwalker wrote: Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Why do you compute a DOF scenario for a 30x20-cm image viewed from a 40-cm distance, and subsequently check it by examining a blown-up portion?
Your photograph measures approximately 30x20 cm on my screen, and I think that someone with an average acuity can\'t find much wrong with the sharpness when he looks at it from a 40-cm distance. Granted, it\'s a monitor display and not a print, but then your CoC of 0.020 mm is not that critical either.
Toothwalker, those were the default parameters in DOF calculator I\'m using. I can change them to the failed print I have in my hands right now: 420mm x 280mm, watching from 400mm distance (I can put the print further away as long as my arms reach and the result won\'t change) resulting 0.014025 CoC, and the stupid formula in calculator saying that DOF should reach from 2.334m to 13.966m. However any of this doesn\'t matter: the point was that the calculator formulas assume simple lens (one element if I remember correctly), not real lens used for photography. However this typically works somehow with most of the lenses, specially very real results can be achieved with simple symmetrical lenses (e.g. rangefinder lenses, specially Biogon kind of design), but can be very different with lenses which are reverse telephoto design (e.g. Distagon). Also the \"sharpness\" is divided differently inside the \"acceptable\" DOF, for example Leica lenses typically have very sharp region in middle of DOF, and Zeiss has tried to spread the sharpness inside the DOF.
In the A3 print the tree at about 7m from camera appears to lack details and contrast compared to the tree on front of it. In this photo I would have preferred to have both trees in focus. I assumed that f/8 would be enough but seems that I should have used f/11 or even f/16. I have not used many lenses around this focal length except Nikon 28/3.5PC, Canon 28/1.8, Canon 17-40 and they would all have had enough DOF with f/8 on this scene.
For me personally the LCD monitor vs. print does not end to same results: I cannot see individual needles on the \"tree at 4m distance\" on the photo I posted above in my monitor. However on A4 printout I can see them, if I put the printout next to my monitor. Also on the A4 printout the \"about 7m tree\" does lack microcontrast and \"punch\" in the tree at 4m, where this 975px wide webthumbnail does not show much difference between the trees, but even on monitor the tree closer to \"stands out\" from the tree behind it, maybe due to smaller (micro)contrast on the tree behind.
bobring wrote:
OK, here are three from my 1DsIII and 21mm ZE. Not my best but good examples I think of a wide lens giving good results when held level, etc (no mustache distortion). Thanks, Bob
Wow, the first one was really great looking image, I can really being there (which is the most important criteria for me in photograph, an in which 99% of the photos fail).
Jan 09, 2010 at 05:08 PM
Previous versions of Samuli Vahonen's message #7984732 « Post your best Zeiss 28mm and wider - »
