EM1 4.0 Firmware Upgrade

[zensu]

Thanks to you guys and gals for helping clarify how "Focus Bracketing" and "Focus Stacking" actually function. It will help save me from doing this :facesmack: !
Bobby

 

[Knorp]

In line with Scott's observations I found distant settings 1-2-3 to be fine for short distances to subject.

Lens 60mm @2.8 | distance approx 1 mtr | distant increments ranges from 1 to 5.

D=1 D=2

D=3 D=4

D=5

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Bart, you've got the right equipment for this piece of reverse engineering. I don't have a LensAlign ruler. What are the dimensions in mm of the gradations that you show?

I assume you focused on the 0 point (the bright white line) in each shot? And what is the depth of focus on the lensalign scale for a single shot? (In my 80 mm f/2.8 test, it was about 5 cm.) I wonder if the focus changes that they make are keyed to the depth of field (which would mean a dependance on focal length and on aperture) or are just fixed distances. To test this would require shooting with the 60 macro at, say 5.6, stacking with 1 unit, and then with the zoom at maybe 18mm, f/2.8. Want to try it?

scott

EDIT: Notice when you set the increment to 5, the steps were bigger than the depth of field of a single shot, leaving blurry portions at +20, +7.5 -5 and -14. I bet if you ran 5 units at f/5.6, those blurs would sharpen right up, and the total area covered would stay the same -- meaning that the units are actually lengths. That still leaves the question of whether the lengths are scaled to the distance at which you initially focus. Oh well, experiments still needed to use this.

 

[Knorp]

Bart, you've got the right equipment for this piece of reverse engineering. I don't have a LensAlign ruler. What are the dimensions in mm of the gradations that you show?

I assume you focused on the 0 point (the bright white line) in each shot? And what is the depth of focus on the lensalign scale for a single shot? (In my 80 mm f/2.8 test, it was about 5 cm.) I wonder if the focus changes that they make are keyed to the depth of field (which would mean a dependance on focal length and on aperture) or are just fixed distances. To test this would require shooting with the 60 macro at, say 5.6, stacking with 1 unit, and then with the zoom at maybe 18mm, f/2.8. Want to try it?

scott

EDIT: Notice when you set the increment to 5, the steps were bigger than the depth of field of a single shot, leaving blurry portions at +20, +7.5 -5 and -14. I bet if you ran 5 units at f/5.6, those blurs would sharpen right up, and the total area covered would stay the same -- meaning that the units are actually lengths. That still leaves the question of whether the lengths are scaled to the distance at which you initially focus. Oh well, experiments still needed to use this.

Hi Scott,

the way this ruler works is that you focus on a vertical plane that's aligned to the 0 on the ruler, so the nil mark is the point of focus.
From 0 to 16 on the ruler is approx. 50,5 mm. Mind you the ruler was at a 20 degree angle for the test.
And I agree using f5.6 or perhaps even better f8.0 will cover the in-between blurry areas when using increment 5, be it at the cost of subject isolation.


But why 18mm ?
I'd like to do some more testing, but not tonight.

Kind regards.

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

If the increment in the focus bracketing menu (1 to 10) is distance, then changing the f stop without changing the focal length would fill in the soft gaps when you need more depth, but the centers of sharp focus would be in the same place in the individual jpegs. If it is drawn from a table of the depth of field at the focal length and aperture set, then the jpegs would stretch further when the fstop is set higher or you choose a shorter focal length. Of course the simplest answer is just to try it out, find something that works, and stick with it.

scott

 

[mazor]

My initial attempts focus stacking on a small nature walk with the 12-40 pro. f2.8 used as in low light and closeup at 40mm (80mm effective)