Fuji is not wrong after all
I would like to exchange an experience I just made about X-pro1 depth of field. Fuji has been criticized for its overly prudent circle of confusion chosen for its depth of field scales: the exemplary DPR review touched also the problem. In the last few days I was making test shots with my X-pro1, a Kiron adapter and a Leica Summicron 50 lens (circa 1970), just to see in which condition hyperfocal was usable. I know the Sum 50 is not the ideal lense for this kind of job, but it was just a test. You know, ISO up, f/16, let's see what comes in focus using the hyperfocal mark on the lens at f/11 (the circle of confusion with 1970 Tri-X film is different from a digital sensor). Result: very little in focus. Infinity definitly blurred.
So I went to the window and shot a series. ISO 800, f/16, RAW, developed in Silypix, zero sharpness, sharpened in Photoshop. Five shots, putting infinite at the f/2, 4, 8, 11 and 16 marks of the dof scale on the Summicron. Subject very far away.
Results. f/2 and 4 are ok. There is a small but visible degradation at f/8. Images shot the 11 or 16 mark unusable.
So Fuji may have been pessimistic choosing its circle of confusion. But it was not too pessimistic. For some reasons, maybe relating to sensor design and absence of that dirty glass they call AA filter, the combo is very critical. A great instrument in making images, not the best if you like hyperfocal, unless you use a 8-12mm lens.
|AT-6 Harvard by jarud|
from Trainer aircraft
|Monarch butterflies winter roost at Pismo Beach by cjf2|
from Safety in Numbers (Nature)