Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 46 of 46

Thread: Depth of Field on the D800E

  1. #1
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Depth of Field on the D800E

    One of the hallmark techniques of street shooting has always been using hyper focal distance . On a Leica M you place the infinity mark at the F stop and you can see that everything from your navel to the moon should be in focus . Close inspection would show that this is only true in the most liberal definitions of “in focus “ . With larger sensors (and it appears smaller pixels ) DOF seems to have disappeared .

    A recent blog post on Diglloyd (on the free blog) presents a theory ? that DOf should be calculated by using a circle of confusion that mirrors the pixel size .

    You could easily see this with MF at wide apertures but I had always considered this a difference in focal lengths . Using an M9 and a S2 the pixel pitch is close and so a 70mm lens has the same DOF on both cameras (but different equivalent FOV)..so all I was seeing was the fact that a 70 on the S2 was a 50 on the M9.

    Street shooters are taught to get close and use wide angle lens .....the more you shoot the closer you can get ......but as pixel pitch gets below 5 ... you just don t have adequate DOF to cover subject movement . But the same concept applies to many different subjects .

    Add in that optimum aperture is often between f4 and f5.6 and I ve found my limiting factor with the D800E .....
    Last edited by glenerrolrd; 23rd May 2012 at 06:47.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    54
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    this is making very little sense to me
    DOF should be calculated only based on aperture, focal length, and distance
    the reason Medium Format has a shallow DOF is because with the same aperture and focal length, to get the same composition you must get closer and therefore shallower DOF
    the only thing that changes with higher pixel counts is that it becomes less forgiving with motion blur and poor focus, and I think sometimes it is being wrongly associated with DOF

  3. #3
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Yea and I got motion blur with the 200 f2 at 1/125 on a monopod and I'm a rock I don't move. 36mpx in 35 is better be careful.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    447
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    I understand the point Lloyd is getting at, and I more or less agree with it.

    Calculated DOF depends, among other parameters, on the assumed threshold at which the circle of confusion becomes too small to discern. But the CoC traditionally assumed for enlarging from film depends heavily on the fact that film grain and its side effects obscure fine distinctions in focus. In practice, digital capture today demands a more stringent CoC criterion. The more pixels you have for a given format, the worse it gets. And if you're heavily into pixel-peeping, it gets worse still.

    When I've used an A900 or a 5DII, it almost felt like using a medium format film camera - at least a 645, if not larger - because the apparent depth I was used to having from shooting Tri-X on a 35mm camera wasn't there any more. Shooting 2/3 the focal length on an APS-C format digital camera feels much closer to what it was like shooting 35mm film. I'd probably have a devil of a time trying to do casual walkaround snapshooting with a D800/E, even apart from the bulk and weight of the camera.

    You can get a little bit of this effect just by switching from a fast, grainy film to a slower, sharper, less grainy film. But it really hits you between the eyes when you move from film to high-MP digital capture.

    Moving from 35mm to a FF DSLR certainly preserves the field of view of your lenses, and there are obvious reasons why that's appealing. But in the end, the experience and the results are still very different. The school of hard knocks has taught me that using the same lenses with a sensor that's the same size most definitely does not preserve the same rendering of the scene.

    Repeat after me: "It's a new medium, learn to use it on its own terms..."

  5. #5
    Senior Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,306
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    The CoC you want depends on the number of pixels, not pixel size. More pixels means you magnify less at a given print size.

    A 70mm on the S2 has less DoF at the same f stop as a 50mm on the M9. It gets the same DoF at one greater f stop than the M9. At the same DoF it diffracts more.

    Going bigger is ALWAYS a losing proposition other than for movements - always has been, always will be. The ONLY benefit is more photons, implying less noise. But then 35mm has MFD and the hybrid S2 beat in that regard as well (which suggests photon shot noise is not yet dominant).

  6. #6
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,802
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Welcome to the world of 4.9um pixels ... did you really think that the physics would be different for Nikon 35mm as it is for every medium format camera? That tiny size of pixel will absolutely have a knock on effect in terms of diffraction, apparent sharpness due to motion being rendered, DoF and so on. Luckily the T/S lenses are retro-focus and far enough away from the sensor otherwise I'm sure you'd be having to worry about lens cast colour and light fall off effects too.

    If you are pixel peeping at 100% on screen then basically yes I believe that the CoC probably is 1 pixel in size with it's associated effect on what you deem to be acceptable focus for DoF determination. If you break away from the monitor and print then you can be more generous about the CoC you use, depending of course on how far away you pixel peep your prints too. Consensus seems to be to go 1.4x or sqrt(2)x pixel pitch as a better approximation for CoC. Unfortunately when you use these CoC's you rapidly find that your acceptable DoF diminishes away to almost nothing pretty quickly, although again I stress that it really only matters depending upon the size of image that you view and from where. Scale down to the web or even 8x10's and your prints will seem to have plenty of DoF and the effects of diffraction etc will start to disappear also. Print billboards or stare at 100% images on screen and you'll be fighting with diffraction and softer images rendered as apparently smaller acceptable DoF.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

  7. #7
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Quote Originally Posted by donaldt View Post
    this is making very little sense to me
    DOF should be calculated only based on aperture, focal length, and distance
    the reason Medium Format has a shallow DOF is because with the same aperture and focal length, to get the same composition you must get closer and therefore shallower DOF
    the only thing that changes with higher pixel counts is that it becomes less forgiving with motion blur and poor focus, and I think sometimes it is being wrongly associated with DOF
    Purpose of the post is to discuss diglloyd s POV (supported by Zeiss) that traditional measures of DOF don t factor in pixel size . Your observations appear to be conventional wisdom based on either film or pixel dimensions that are similar .

    I will have to look to be sure but I think the D800 pixel size is below 5 and the Leica S is about 6.8 for example . I do not know if this is enough to materially affect DOF . But I do know that DOF with either camera is much much smaller than the old tables provided.

    Is pixel size relevant ?

    Is DOF a consideration in determining which camera system fits a specific application?

  8. #8
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    Welcome to the world of 4.9um pixels ... did you really think that the physics would be different for Nikon 35mm as it is for every medium format camera? That tiny size of pixel will absolutely have a knock on effect in terms of diffraction, apparent sharpness due to motion being rendered, DoF and so on. Luckily the T/S lenses are retro-focus and far enough away from the sensor otherwise I'm sure you'd be having to worry about lens cast colour and light fall off effects too.

    If you are pixel peeping at 100% on screen then basically yes I believe that the CoC probably is 1 pixel in size with it's associated effect on what you deem to be acceptable focus for DoF determination. If you break away from the monitor and print then you can be more generous about the CoC you use, depending of course on how far away you pixel peep your prints too. Consensus seems to be to go 1.4x or sqrt(2)x pixel pitch as a better approximation for CoC. Unfortunately when you use these CoC's you rapidly find that your acceptable DoF diminishes away to almost nothing pretty quickly, although again I stress that it really only matters depending upon the size of image that you view and from where. Scale down to the web or even 8x10's and your prints will seem to have plenty of DoF and the effects of diffraction etc will start to disappear also. Print billboards or stare at 100% images on screen and you'll be fighting with diffraction and softer images rendered as apparently smaller acceptable DoF.
    Your examples seem extreme to me .. I shoot with a Leica S2 kit and m9 s except for sports where I use Nikon. So I am familiar with the additional requirements of high resolution and MF . My standard is that if I can see it on a screen at normal size ..then it matters. Of course my files look sharper when printed but much of what I do is shown on a screen . Your requirements may be different ..nothing wrong with that.

    lloyd s discussion exactly matches my experience with the D3s and the D3x . Same lens and same technique and the D3S was always easier to nail the focus . Was never certain ..is that just because you can see the plane of focus better in a higher resolution file or because the DOF is actually smaller ?

    I think a good assumption for this discussion is that those acquiring D800 s will be seeking the IQ benefits of additional MP s . Haven t seen much discussion on the limitations on DOF .

    I think you will start to see complaints of “I can t get anything sharp “ as the camera rolls out to a greater number of photographers . (This camera will be a B%^%%^^ to shoot action with long lenses. ) But I had never seen anything that lays out the relevance of pixel size in determining DOF .

    Guy you should be seeing this in spades in doing events . How do you get a group of people in focus ? Maybe no different than with MF ?

    Understand that this may be old news to MF shooters but I didn t expect the extent I am seeing. The D800 seems like it has less DOF than my S2 after adjusting for FOV equivalents . How many D800 buyers are expecting such demanding requirements ?

  9. #9
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Quote Originally Posted by Jan Brittenson View Post
    The CoC you want depends on the number of pixels, not pixel size. More pixels means you magnify less at a given print size.

    A 70mm on the S2 has less DoF at the same f stop as a 50mm on the M9. It gets the same DoF at one greater f stop than the M9. At the same DoF it diffracts more.

    Going bigger is ALWAYS a losing proposition other than for movements - always has been, always will be. The ONLY benefit is more photons, implying less noise. But then 35mm has MFD and the hybrid S2 beat in that regard as well (which suggests photon shot noise is not yet dominant).
    Then you disagree with LLoyd ? I will let you tell him?

    If I shot an 50mm lens on an s2 ,m9 and d800 which would have the least DOF and why? In your hypothesis ..the M9 would have the most because its 18mps , the s2 and the D800 should be similar as they create similar file sizes . Or am I misunderstanding something .

  10. #10
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Roger no doubt for me I feel I lost a stop or so of speed with the bigger mpx from shooting similar events with other smaller full frame sensors. Now DOF is a little tougher for me since I'm so used to very little on MF but the D800 is better that I can say , how much I can't pin it totally down against other smaller full frame sensors. I seem to be doing pretty good at F6.3 that's carrying pretty well with the 35 especially. But this is just field feelings so nothing I can pin down in calculation if you know what I mean.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  11. #11
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    I will say this for sure this cam just takes more care in your technique. You just can't point it at something and expect perfection. So you really do have to pay attention as you would with MF. Now it is easier to shoot than MF and that does help but from a MF shooter that shoots a lot this is pretty similar in watching yourself , you just can't be sloppy. So yes I can see where some people will complain they can't get anything sharp or stuff like that . This is harder to shoot than the D7000 I bought 2 days ago and been using along with the D800 for this gig I'm on. Which I need to be leaving for right about now. I was up late last night my SSD failed on a laptop fall yesterday. The spinning drive is fine but the SSD drive crapped out. Go figure

    Remind my to shoot Murphy in the ***. Lol
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  12. #12
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Nothing has changed at all and this is not new.
    COC is based on the angular resolution of the human eye and the size and viewing distance of that detail.
    If you view your images at 100% routinely and at a distance where you can see a pixel, then for sure, the COC approximates the pixel pitch. The 1.4 pixel pitch is related to the fact that square pixels are 1.414 (Sqrt(2)) times the pixel pitch apart on the diagonal.
    For optimum crop-ability than sure, keep your COC down to the minimum. If on the other hand, you make only 5x7 prints, than a COC of more traditional dimensions might suit you.
    So therefore, COC is literally in the eye of the beholder and the intended use of the image.

    Sharpness beyond the resolution limits of the eye are maybe worth bragging rights but not much more.
    -bob

  13. #13
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Just to add a bit more to Bob's cogent response -- folks should understand if they don't already that *the* significant variable in the complete DoF formula is personal choice of CoC constant. With digital and our propensity to view images always at 100% to check for focus, sharpness, detail etc, the defacto CoC has become pixel pitch -- however, this is not a mandate! You are free to use the same CoC you used with your 12MP camera if you want . Using the D800 pixel pitch for traditional film capture CoC would be roughly equivalent to scrutinizing every negative or transparency you shot under a 70 power microscope. How many of you ever routinely did that?

    Finally, if you put a 50mm lens on an M9, a 50 on a D800 and a 70 on an S2 and shoot the same exact framing from the same exact position using f2.8 on the M9 and D800 50's and f4 on the S2's 70, then print each file to the same largish size, say 20x30, you will note the following: 1) ALL THREE will have IDENTICAL DoF in the print; 2) The D800 and S2 prints will look "smoother" (and similar/identical) in tonality than the M9 print; 3) and you may or may not notice certain lens characteristics/rendering differences you normally do see when viewing at 100% on your computer screen. Jack's corollary: It is surprising just how superbly certain sub-par lenses can perform in print when they totally rot at 100% view on a monitor -- and even when used in front of sensors that are sharper everywhere than the lens is.

    Flamesuit donned!
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  14. #14
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,802
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Jack,

    I don't think that you need a flamesuit - as predicted the questions are coming about why can't I get 100% sharp images with the same DoF at f/16 or f/22 (or to be honest f/8 -> f5.6) that people used to with 10 or 12mp cameras. Why are identical images looking softer on screen now with 36mp compared to the same shot with the same settings taken on a D3 or D700 etc etc.

    Nothing has changed - you need to treat shooting a D800 (as indeed you did the D3x) as if you are shooting with bigger formats such as MFDBs. It's still all about the tiny pixel pitch and physics/optics.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

  15. #15
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Exactly Graham -- it's the same thing we dealt with when moving up in MF backs: Once backs hit full-frame 40MP, the lens faults started being "visible" and only got more visible as pixel counts incrteased.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  16. #16
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Kind of my just need to be paying attention comment. My normal stage shooting bumped up some with shutter. Now little secret here I won't be processing these at full res anyway but downsizing them and I will come back with a little less noise and get appearance of detail. It's a little cheat but look what I'm starting with a big mpx cam that's far easier to handle and someone tell me where I can get a 200 f2 in MF. Not happening lol

    Btw I can tell you this with certainty very few people will ever look at your images at 100 percent. Need to get over the screen as it is fooling you a little in Print these images are much better. Seriously don't look at them at 100 percent 50 or 67 percent is actually a better judge.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  17. #17
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    A decent guideline is to view them at 2-3 times print size on a typical monitor that displays at around 100 pixels per inch.
    -bob

  18. #18
    Senior Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,306
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    A 645 CoC of 0.045 is equivalent to a 135 of 0.025 when viewed in print.

    Go to Online Depth of Field Calculator (which defaults to these CoCs) and check the DoF of a 645 80mm lens at f/2.8 vs 50mm on 135. There's no question 50mm on 135 has better DoF. They match when the 80 on 645 is stopped down to f/4.

    Smaller formats have better DoF at the same f-stop. That's a mathematical certainty.
    Last edited by Jan Brittenson; 24th May 2012 at 11:06. Reason: Fixed error

  19. #19
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,802
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Circle of Confusion (CoC)
    Definition: "A group of photographers sitting around trying to understand Depth of Field"

    Michael Reichmann summed it up perfectly.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  20. #20
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,500
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    The CoC is a product of the format--how many pixel you have is irrelevant. The Zeiss definition is 1/1500 the format (or crop) diagonal. However, the CoC is also subjective and you can, and some do, create a different value for the CoC to help them visualize DoF.

  21. #21
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,603
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    One of the hallmark techniques of street shooting has always been using hyper focal distance . On a Leica M you place the infinity mark at the F stop and you can see that everything from your navel to the moon should be in focus . Close inspection would show that this is only true in the most liberal definitions of “in focus “ . With larger sensors (and it appears smaller pixels ) DOF seems to have disappeared .

    A recent blog post on Diglloyd (on the free blog) presents a theory ? that DOf should be calculated by using a circle of confusion that mirrors the pixel size .

    You could easily see this with MF at wide apertures but I had always considered this a difference in focal lengths . Using an M9 and a S2 the pixel pitch is close and so a 70mm lens has the same DOF on both cameras (but different equivalent FOV)..so all I was seeing was the fact that a 70 on the S2 was a 50 on the M9.

    Street shooters are taught to get close and use wide angle lens .....the more you shoot the closer you can get ......but as pixel pitch gets below 5 ... you just don t have adequate DOF to cover subject movement . But the same concept applies to many different subjects .

    Add in that optimum aperture is often between f4 and f5.6 and I ve found my limiting factor with the D800E .....
    You basically covered what you need to do when shooting with the D800E. So, why bother with the theory which is based on a set of assumptions and is approximate at best? Unlike a manual RF cam, the D800E or a liveview cam offers DOF preview. It is an easy preparation- for a given lens, and a distance range, the required aperture can be found ahead of time and used in practice. Even in case of a mechanical RF cam, it can be worked out ahead of time.

  22. #22
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,500
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    Add in that optimum aperture is often between f4 and f5.6 and I ve found my limiting factor with the D800E .....
    Photography is not an object lesson in resolving power, it is an art. Use your aperture to create the DoF you need, that will always result in the best and sharpest image.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  23. #23
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Photography is not an object lesson in resolving power, it is an art. Use your aperture to create the DoF you need, that will always result in the best and sharpest image.
    Seriously Sahasin are you kidding ? What an insightful comment . The whole discussion is about whether the D800 has adequate DOF for some of its intended uses . Diglloyd put forth POV that the smaller pixel pitch of cameras like the D800 wash t being considered in DOF calculations .

    I will be sure to consult your definitions of photography before I go out to shoot.

  24. #24
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    Diglloyd put forth POV that the smaller pixel pitch of cameras like the D800 wash t being considered in DOF calculations .
    And my point was now that pixel pitch is finally small enough, I do not think it is a viable determinant of CoC. When pixels were fatter, it made more sense to look at it though... What I believe is now a viable determinant, is how large you plan to print combined with the average viewing distance you expect -- which not too ironically is exactly what we used to do with film .
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  25. #25
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    Jack,

    I don't think that you need a flamesuit - as predicted the questions are coming about why can't I get 100% sharp images with the same DoF at f/16 or f/22 (or to be honest f/8 -> f5.6) that people used to with 10 or 12mp cameras. Why are identical images looking softer on screen now with 36mp compared to the same shot with the same settings taken on a D3 or D700 etc etc.

    Nothing has changed - you need to treat shooting a D800 (as indeed you did the D3x) as if you are shooting with bigger formats such as MFDBs. It's still all about the tiny pixel pitch and physics/optics.
    "As predicted “ ....Jeez Graham thats pretty damn insulting .

    Nothings changed except we now have a 36MP Nikon that costs $3000 and looks and handles like a D700 . The objective ...am I just guessing here .. is that most buyers will believe they should get better IQ (however they define it) .

    Two related observations :

    1. Having some limited experience with the D800E and familiar with the differences between the s2,M9,D3x,D3s etc . I am finding the DOF (as I see it ) extremely restrictive at least as much as the S2 . This makes the D800E less versatile than I anticipated . It will be very hard to use for street shooting and most action photography . (thats my opinion ..not asking for any help ..just a POV) . It is unforgiving with MF focus lenses more than I expected after using a D3X with the same lenses.

    Please don t call me a pixel peeper . Lack of sharpness due to missed focus (outside that stingy DOF) is my number one issue in street shooting and action photography . DOF is also critical when you layer a sheet scene ...and you have to know your equipment very well to be able to put the plane of focus where it needs to be . This wash t the purpose of the post so if you disagree on this paragraph lets try a different thread. Maybe how sharp is sharp enough ?

    2. Diglloyd put forth POV that we might not be considering pixel size in estimating DOF . I found this interesting and wondered ..how big of a factor is this . I am sure that the physics and formulas have been explained. Camera to subject distance and focal length are what I grew up with ....the DOF scales on my Leica M lenses . Digital adds a new variable or maybe several.

    Its obvious that a D800 is a lot like MF and you could do worse that just considering it MF with all it benefits and challenges . But comparing the D800E to my S2 (a number of people seem to want to do this ?) I have the same MPs ..but very different pixel sizes ....4.88 verse 6.8 . So if I shot a 50mm lens on each camera (forgetting the FOV would be different) would the S2 have greater DOF? I expect the answer to be YES .

    Does it matter ..I don t know . If I use a 70mm on the S2 to get the same FOV now what . I expect the lens factor outweighs the differences in pixel size . So here the D800 would have more DOF.

    My apology for confusing the intent of the thread as its obvious that my attempt to provide context for my observations thru some posters off the track .

  26. #26
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,500
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    Seriously Sahasin are you kidding ? What an insightful comment . The whole discussion is about whether the D800 has adequate DOF for some of its intended uses . Diglloyd put forth POV that the smaller pixel pitch of cameras like the D800 wash t being considered in DOF calculations .

    I will be sure to consult your definitions of photography before I go out to shoot.
    That would be very wise to do...

    But seriously, sorry if I misunderstood your comment--perhaps a bad attempt at humor.

    Pixel pitch and DoF are unrelated. DoF is about perceived sharpness which comes down to the ability of the eye to see detail based on a viewing condition. So the answer to Diglloyd comments are simple; you don't consider pixel pitch because it is irrelevant.

  27. #27
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    And my point was now that pixel pitch is finally small enough, I do not think it is a viable determinant of CoC. When pixels were fatter, it made more sense to look at it though... What I believe is now a viable determinant, is how large you plan to print combined with the average viewing distance you expect -- which not too ironically is exactly what we used to do with film .
    Thank you for an easily understood answer . Then you believe that the differences between the D800 and say the S2 pixel size are immaterial (or not really relevant in practical applications ). And that at the same lens focal length they should be pretty close . I must have misinterpreted Lloyd s POV .

  28. #28
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,500
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    So if I shot a 50mm lens on each camera (forgetting the FOV would be different) would the S2 have greater DOF? I expect the answer to be YES .
    And the answer is yes.

    Does it matter ..I don t know . If I use a 70mm on the S2 to get the same FOV now what . I expect the lens factor outweighs the differences in pixel size . So here the D800 would have more DOF.
    Yes again.

    One of the problems of defining DoF is that it is "acceptable" sharpness. What you think is "acceptable" changes over time, with subject matter, with personal taste, etc, and so it becomes very difficult to look at an image and say DoF stops at that point or this point. Dof scales and calculators are really a guild to help you visualize DoF, but they are not definitive, if that makes sense.

    But if you start printing your D800 images next to your M9 images, you should be seeing the same DoF.

  29. #29
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    Thank you for an easily understood answer . Then you believe that the differences between the D800 and say the S2 pixel size are immaterial (or not really relevant in practical applications ). And that at the same lens focal length they should be pretty close . I must have misinterpreted Lloyd s POV .
    Roger, *I* believe the differences in pixel-pitch/sensor-size between the D800 and S2 are for most practical photographic purposes, moot. However, since in practical form we'd need to shoot the S2 with the 70 and the D800 with a 50 to get similar framing, the D800 is going to generally going to render deeper DoF if the same apertures are used. But that's a healthy *if.* Ironically, the S2's fatter pixels should allow an extra stop before diffraction sets in, and that is roughly the same extra stop that the S2's longer focal length for same framing requires to get back to the same net DoF as the D800. IOW, it's going to be a DoF toss-up if you use both systems at their respective optimal diffraction limited apertures and lens focals that render the same basic framing. Stated differently, the lone advantage the D800 will have is a net gain of about one stop in shutter speed all else equalized. Starting to sound vaguely familiar? (Reader, if it doesn't familiar to you, then you probably weren't around for the any of the 5 decades of 35mm film to MF film arguments LOL!)

    Of course then we start to get into ISO and noise comparison discussions AND lens rendering characteristic discussions which become more and more subjective not to mention personal to the individual artist's needs -- in the end we choose a system based on our own perceptions of artistic and/or technical benefits balanced to our own needs, no right or wrong choices.

    ..

    I'm not going to try and interpret what Lloyd stated because I'm not 100% clear as to what he meant
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  30. #30
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Really simple
    This should settle it Depth of field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    -bob

    All because of the angular resolution as presented to the eye as a result of the whole imaging chain that results in the viewed image.
    for a 35mm format, and an un-cropped print viewed at a distance equal to the print's diagonal measure the COC is the same no matter how many pixels are present as long as they cannot be individually resolved at the viewing distance.
    The only reason that a larger sensor seems to have a larger COC is that less enlargement is required to obtain a given print size.
    The only reason to use a COC less than 30 microns is if the print is viewed at distances closer than the print diagonal, or if the image has been significantly cropped and then enlarged to the same print size.
    If one makes it a habit of viewing images at 100% and I confess that I am guilty of this especially when evaluating sharpness, then any COC larger than 1.4-2 pixels pitches just makes it look too soft. but then, if you work it out, I am viewing the image at something like 1/10 of the diagonal measure.

    Sometimes there is no really simple explanation.
    Last edited by Bob; 24th May 2012 at 15:26.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  31. #31
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    Roger, *I* believe the differences in pixel-pitch/sensor-size between the D800 and S2 are for most practical photographic purposes, moot. However, since in practical form we'd need to shoot the S2 with the 70 and the D800 with a 50 to get similar framing, the D800 is going to generally going to render deeper DoF if the same apertures are used. But that's a healthy *if.* Ironically, the S2's fatter pixels should allow an extra stop before diffraction sets in, and that is roughly the same extra stop that the S2's longer focal length for same framing requires to get back to the same net DoF as the D800. IOW, it's going to be a DoF toss-up if you use both systems at their respective optimal diffraction limited apertures and lens focals that render the same basic framing. Stated differently, the lone advantage the D800 will have is a net gain of about one stop in shutter speed all else equalized. Starting to sound vaguely familiar? (Reader, if it doesn't familiar to you, then you probably weren't around for the any of the 5 decades of 35mm film to MF film arguments LOL!)


    Of course then we start to get into ISO and noise comparison discussions AND lens rendering characteristic discussions which become more and more subjective not to mention personal to the individual artist's needs -- in the end we choose a system based on our own perceptions of artistic and/or technical benefits balanced to our own needs, no right or wrong choices.

    ..

    I'm not going to try and interpret what Lloyd stated because I'm not 100% clear as to what he meant
    UNCLE ... Thanks
    Roger Dunham
    http://rogerdunham.com/
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  32. #32
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,500
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    I did a measurement of the area of the 33x44mm sensor I am inspecting when viewing my Pentax 645D files at 100% on a 24" monitor in Photoshop. It was about 9x5mm. Or to put another way, it is like looking a 44"x33" print from about 10"

  33. #33
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post
    Really simple
    This should settle it Depth of field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    -bob

    All because of the angular resolution as presented to the eye as a result of the whole imaging chain that results in the viewed image.
    for a 35mm format, and an un-cropped print viewed at a distance equal to the print's diagonal measure the COC is the same no matter how many pixels are present as long as they cannot be individually resolved at the viewing distance.
    The only reason that a larger sensor seems to have a larger COC is that less enlargement is required to obtain a given print size.
    The only reason to use a COC less than 30 microns is if the print is viewed at distances closer than the print diagonal, or if the image has been significantly cropped and then enlarged to the same print size.
    If one makes it a habit of viewing images at 100% and I confess that I am guilty of this especially when evaluating sharpness, then any COC larger than 1.4-2 pixels pitches just makes it look too soft. but then, if you work it out, I am viewing the image at something like 1/10 of the diagonal measure.

    Sometimes there is no really simple explanation.
    I follow the logic and really I look at most stuff on a screen from about 18 inches ....doesn t have to be 100% to find the DOF . The higher the resolution the easier it is to find . But I really notice at normal size that the obvious focus point just isn t as crisp ..then I check and I can find the front and back focus ..but it degrades the IQ . You can see this in portraits in a second ..missed the leading eye and its in the trash bin.

    No argument on the definitions ,computations etc and agree sometimes there is no simple explanation.

  34. #34
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,802
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    "As predicted “ ....Jeez Graham thats pretty damn insulting .
    Sorry that you feel that way but I stand by my comments - many months ago I and others stated that this would happen, and guess what? It has. It certainly wasn't anything personal, just an observation.

    If you want an exercise in circular & heated venomous arguments about all of this then take a look at the monster thread that was recently over at LuLa.

    Anyway, I think that this subject has been pretty comprehensively covered in this thread. We all get our shorts in a knot over the impossibility of huge DOF rendering on screen at 100% when the reality is that unless you have a 36mp screen it isn't going to matter anything like as much as you think.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

  35. #35
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    F8 and be there. A old saying that still holds true in most cases for DOF at least.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  36. #36
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    Sorry that you feel that way but I stand by my comments - many months ago I and others stated that this would happen, and guess what? It has. It certainly wasn't anything personal, just an observation.

    If you want an exercise in circular & heated venomous arguments about all of this then take a look at the monster thread that was recently over at LuLa.

    Anyway, I think that this subject has been pretty comprehensively covered in this thread. We all get our shorts in a knot over the impossibility of huge DOF rendering on screen at 100% when the reality is that unless you have a 36mp screen it isn't going to matter anything like as much as you think.
    Graham

    When having a “discussion” it is impolite to start ..by categorizing others observations as “predictable” or establishing them as “amateurs” . This is just a technique to diminish any opinion other than your own .

    No one is challenging your right to your own opinion ..but I will push back when you attack my POV by diminishing my credibility . Argue the facts or your experience but not that others don t understand what is obvious to you. This is what is meant by “speak for yourself” .

  37. #37
    Senior Member danielmoore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    272
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    18

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    A very informative in depth read for those who care to indulge their inner geek, and haven't had enough yet.
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  38. #38
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,802
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    Graham

    When having a “discussion” it is impolite to start ..by categorizing others observations as “predictable” or establishing them as “amateurs” . This is just a technique to diminish any opinion other than your own .

    No one is challenging your right to your own opinion ..but I will push back when you attack my POV by diminishing my credibility . Argue the facts or your experience but not that others don t understand what is obvious to you. This is what is meant by “speak for yourself” .
    Roger,

    This is my last communication on the matter since it's transcended from observations to perceived personal attacks on credibility. You are using words here that I didn't use and assuming that I have desire to diminish your opinion - well, they're both news to me.

    Anyway, in summary, if want to pixel peep at 100% on screen then you're going to end up determining that the 'acceptable' DoF is rendered using a CoC at close to pixel pitch. If you print or display at different sizes and on different media, the CoC used to estimate your range of acceptable DoF will be a completely different number (typically much larger) unless you want to view it with a microscope.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

  39. #39
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,500
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Zeiss has a really nice pdf on DoF and bokeh:

    http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b8b6f/embedtitelintern/cln_35_bokeh_en/$file/cln35_bokeh_en.pdf

  40. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    447
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Zeiss has a really nice pdf on DoF and bokeh:

    http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b8b6f/embedtitelintern/cln_35_bokeh_en/$file/cln35_bokeh_en.pdf
    +1: It's an excellent paper. Pay special attention to the section at the bottom of page 20, "How precise are tables and depth of field calculators?"

    In the same spirit, here's another question to ponder: what does sharpening do to focus transitions, and to our subjective perceptions of DOF?

  41. #41
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,500
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Quote Originally Posted by Oren Grad View Post
    In the same spirit, here's another question to ponder: what does sharpening do to focus transitions, and to our subjective perceptions of DOF?
    Tricky question. Our perception of DoF is really complex and subtle. Sharpening should impact the DoF as it would impact acceptable sharpness. What the practical result would be is harder to quantify. I would say it is insignificant, simply because a high contrast scene would be "sharper" than a low contrast one and I don't think we perceive changes to DoF because of increased contrast. At least in any practical measure.

  42. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    447
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Tricky question. Our perception of DoF is really complex and subtle. Sharpening should impact the DoF as it would impact acceptable sharpness. What the practical result would be is harder to quantify. I would say it is insignificant, simply because a high contrast scene would be "sharper" than a low contrast one and I don't think we perceive changes to DoF because of increased contrast. At least in any practical measure.
    I'm not sure there is a hard-and-fast answer, given the strong role of subjective perception and the huge variation in image content and in sharpening practices. I mentioned it here only because in trying to understand the phenomenon that induced Roger to launch this thread, I don't think it can all be boiled down to picking the "right" CoC to plug into the classical formula.

  43. #43
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,500
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Quote Originally Posted by Oren Grad View Post
    I don't think it can all be boiled down to picking the "right" CoC to plug into the classical formula.
    Sure it can. DoF scales and calculators are only a guide that lets you visualize the DoF in a scene. You can even make your own CoC if that gives you a better way to see it--I know a few folks that choose the DoF index one stop open than the set aperture because they find it meets their expectations better.

    I don't think basing DoF for 100% monitor view is very useful, unless you crop a lot.

  44. #44
    Senior Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,306
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Sure it can. DoF scales and calculators are only a guide that lets you visualize the DoF in a scene. You can even make your own CoC if that gives you a better way to see it--I know a few folks that choose the DoF index one stop open than the set aperture because they find it meets their expectations better.
    Knowing what you get at certain stops on the scale is just a matter of getting acquainted with the equipment. It doesn't matter if it's perfect as long as it's consistent, meaning it's pretty easy to stop down one or two stops extra vs what the scale says. Not only that, but because the scale is consistent it's pretty easy to directly map that value to a diffraction-optimal one. It turns out the crossover between stopping down and diffraction is purely f-stop related, and unaffected by focal length. Here's the scale I had taped onto my Mamiya 7:



    Basically, if the lens scale says f/5.6, stop down to f/16. But this is on 6x7; on 35mm f/5.6 would map to f/8-11 approximately. Maybe f/8.5. (.5 indicating a half-stop, so effectively f/11)

    But it really comes down to knowing the equipment and how to use it effectively.

    Unfortunately the DoF scales on modern lenses suck.

    Of course, this assumes a lens that doesn't need to be stopped down further to perform. Those sometimes have their places as well, but in that case I'd just stop down the lens to f/11 or whatever it needs to do well.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  45. #45
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    222
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    77

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    I met someone who did that too. Would use depth of field scale, focus for f8 and take picture at f11, as an example.

  46. #46
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,802
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Depth of Field on the D800E

    I've been doing this with digital for years. I use 1.5 - 2 stops off the film indicated hyperfocal - something I also got used to from my Mamiya 7 days (and that was on film too!)
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •