Maximum depth of field

[Pat Regan]

People keep posting about the advantage of shallow DOF but what I would like to know is, how will this camera be for extreme depth of field? Is it typically better than or worse than prosumer digicams? I assume it would depend on the lens.

I shoot lots of landscapes and need a very deep depth of field. Thoughts?

--
Pat Regan

 

[Forrest41926]

People keep posting about the advantage of shallow DOF but what I
would like to know is, how will this camera be for extreme depth of
field? Is it typically better than or worse than prosumer
digicams? I assume it would depend on the lens.

People talk about shallow DOF -- like in a portrait -- because digital P&S cameras aren't able to do this. Personally, I think the advantage of an SLR over a digicam is being able to control DOF. ( Well, manual focus, AF speed, ISO, and all that ... but I'm trying to stay on topic! )

I shoot lots of landscapes and need a very deep depth of field.
Thoughts?

I think you'll probably have to use a wide lens ( for FOV, not for DOF ), and smallish apertures, like f/11 to f/16. Then you should be able to make photos like these:

http://valhallaphotos.com/html/Galleries/LandscapeGalleries.htm

 

[Pat Regan]

Great info and great shot! Thanks.

Pat

People keep posting about the advantage of shallow DOF but what I
would like to know is, how will this camera be for extreme depth of
field? Is it typically better than or worse than prosumer
digicams? I assume it would depend on the lens.

People talk about shallow DOF -- like in a portrait -- because
digital P&S cameras aren't able to do this. Personally, I think
the advantage of an SLR over a digicam is being able to control
DOF. ( Well, manual focus, AF speed, ISO, and all that ... but I'm
trying to stay on topic! )

I shoot lots of landscapes and need a very deep depth of field.
Thoughts?

I think you'll probably have to use a wide lens ( for FOV, not for
DOF ), and smallish apertures, like f/11 to f/16. Then you should
be able to make photos like these:

http://valhallaphotos.com/html/Galleries/LandscapeGalleries.htm

--
Pat Regan

 

[Stanley Allen]

People keep posting about the advantage of shallow DOF but what I
would like to know is, how will this camera be for extreme depth of
field? Is it typically better than or worse than prosumer
digicams? I assume it would depend on the lens.

Deep DOF is easy to achieve by stopping down the lens further (use Av mode, or the "landscape" scene mode). With the 300D, F14 - F18 on almost any lens will give you what you want. Most digicams have large DOF, and have a hard time acheiving shallow DOF because of their small sensor sizes.

A somewhat technical explanation is given here:

http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/dofdigital/

Stanley Allen

 

[FriendlyMan]

Nice shot, what software do you use for the frame?

Thanks.

Pat

People keep posting about the advantage of shallow DOF but what I
would like to know is, how will this camera be for extreme depth of
field? Is it typically better than or worse than prosumer
digicams? I assume it would depend on the lens.

People talk about shallow DOF -- like in a portrait -- because
digital P&S cameras aren't able to do this. Personally, I think
the advantage of an SLR over a digicam is being able to control
DOF. ( Well, manual focus, AF speed, ISO, and all that ... but I'm
trying to stay on topic! )

I shoot lots of landscapes and need a very deep depth of field.
Thoughts?

I think you'll probably have to use a wide lens ( for FOV, not for
DOF ), and smallish apertures, like f/11 to f/16. Then you should
be able to make photos like these:

http://valhallaphotos.com/html/Galleries/LandscapeGalleries.htm

--
Pat Regan

 

[Steven Noyes]

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lenses/ts_e24_35/ts_e24_35.html
http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lenses/ts_e45_28/ts_e45_28.html
http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lenses/ts_e90_28/ts_e90_28.html

Steven

People keep posting about the advantage of shallow DOF but what I
would like to know is, how will this camera be for extreme depth of
field? Is it typically better than or worse than prosumer
digicams? I assume it would depend on the lens.

I shoot lots of landscapes and need a very deep depth of field.
Thoughts?

--
Pat Regan

--
---
New and Updated!!!
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/a_study_in_light

 

[Peter G]

People keep posting about the advantage of shallow DOF but what I
would like to know is, how will this camera be for extreme depth of
field? Is it typically better than or worse than prosumer
digicams? I assume it would depend on the lens.

I shoot lots of landscapes and need a very deep depth of field.
Thoughts?

All you need to do is compare the sensor sizes and the factor of the difference is multiplied by the fstop to give equivilence. Example.

If you have a Sony 707 and you get good results with F8, and you want to use a 300d in the future, what Fstop will give you the same results.

Simple. F8 x (300d sensor size/707 sensor size) = 2.5.

8 x 2.5 = F20.

So F20 on the 300d will give you the same DOF. Now you can probably get away with a fair bit less...

Peter

 

[Dave Lewis]

People keep posting about the advantage of shallow DOF but what I
would like to know is, how will this camera be for extreme depth of
field? Is it typically better than or worse than prosumer
digicams? I assume it would depend on the lens.

I shoot lots of landscapes and need a very deep depth of field.
Thoughts?

--
Pat Regan

You will find maximum depth of field on this camera with standard 35mm lenses to be far far less than consumer digitals with their tiny sensors and lenses. Consumer digitals for all practical purposes are pretty much in focus in outside light from maybe three feet or less to infinity. You surely aren't going to experience that with the Rebel. At 18mm it will be pretty deep, though. You shouldn't have to worry about landscapes having the tree out there fifty feet in sharp focus while the ones on the hill back there blurry. Many lenses have depth of field scales on them, take a look at some of them.
--
Dave Lewis

 

[hm]

I shoot lots of landscapes and need a very deep depth of field.
Thoughts?

You'll achieve wide depth of field on a 300D at a much narrower aperture than on a teensy-sensor point 'n' shoot, and thus will require longer shutter speeds, so it's more important to use a tripod and remote release (or self-timer) when doing landscapes.
-harry

 

[GreyCard]

People keep posting about the advantage of shallow DOF but what I
would like to know is, how will this camera be for extreme depth of
field? Is it typically better than or worse than prosumer
digicams? I assume it would depend on the lens.

I shoot lots of landscapes and need a very deep depth of field.
Thoughts?

--
Pat Regan

--

For maximum depth of field, it's best to focus the lens at its hyperfocal distance H. The depth of field then extends from H/2 to infinity, so that both the foreground and the background are in focus.

H for prosumer cameras is very short because their lenses have a very short focal length (7mm or so). However, with an 18 mm lens at f/8 on a 300D/10D DSLR, H is about 4'. So, if you were to manually focus the lens at 4', then everything would be in focus from about 2' to infinity.

For this calculation I took the diameter of the circle of confusion on the sensor to be 30 microns, which is appropriate for viewing a 10X enlargement. To produce an image that is 'pixel sharp' when viewed at 100% in Photoshop, one should take the diameter to be about 10 microns instead. That increases the hyperfocal distance to about 12'. So, with an 18 mm lens one could make the image pixel sharp from about 6' to infinity - assuming of course that Canon's 18-55 mm lens performs well at f/8.

Depth-of-field calculators (which are based on geometrical optics) will show that you can get more depth of field by stopping down the lens to f/16 or f/22 . However, diffraction then prevents the image from being pixel sharp. At f/22, diffraction blurs the focal point into a disc with a diameter of about 30 microns. The image would be acceptably sharp as a 10x emlargement, but it would not look sharp when viewed in Photoshop at 100%.

Neil Thomas
http://www.pbase.com/neilthomas_bham

 

[Herlev DK]

I keep reading that the DOF isn’t the same for a DSLR with 1.6 FOV as it is in an FF SLR.

If this is true, then cropping the image from an FF SLR to a 1,6 FOV, will change the DOF?
I don’t thing so…..

Br. Karsten

 

[dchao]

Simple. F8 x (300d sensor size/707 sensor size) = 2.5.

8 x 2.5 = F20.

So F20 on the 300d will give you the same DOF. Now you can probably
get away with a fair bit less...

... because you will probably achieve the same result with f/6.7 on your 707.

6.7 x 2.5 = f/16

f/16 with focal length of 18mm will give you excellent DOF. A Hyperfocal distance of only 3.6 ft, that means if you set focus at 3.6 ft, anywhere from 2 ft to infinity will be in focus!

 

[dchao]

No cropping image will not change DOF.

Let's take an example: If you are to enlarge images from both cameras (DSLR and film SLR) to say 10x8. If the DOF from both prints are the same, DOF must be larger on the DSLR since it's image sensor is smaller, and has to be enlarged more to get to 10x8.

I hope you understand

I keep reading that the DOF isn’t the same for a DSLR with
1.6 FOV as it is in an FF SLR.

If this is true, then cropping the image from an FF SLR to a 1,6
FOV, will change the DOF?
I don’t thing so…..

Br. Karsten

 

[SergeSmArt]

I keep reading that the DOF isn’t the same for a DSLR with
1.6 FOV as it is in an FF SLR.

If this is true, then cropping the image from an FF SLR to a 1,6
FOV, will change the DOF?
I don’t thing so…..

Br. Karsten

.. certainly not! Lens just produse an image circle, with DOF set depended of aperture and distance to subject. So - no mattter WHAT PART of that image circle was taken - 24X36mm or 22.7X15.1mm - the DOF should be the same... and ...exept aperture - SOFT Portrait or Tele lenses - they will give you wide DOF but if you use SHARP wide-normal lenes - DOF will be narrowed .. all that - no matter of WHERE you will place an image - on 35mm film or on 300D sensor... wich will take just a SMALLER PART if it. Also, as I understand, all ZOOM lenses not as good for sharp focus as fixed focal length lenses...

do I looks stupid to say that stupid things?

 

[GreyCard]

I keep reading that the DOF isn’t the same for a DSLR with
1.6 FOV as it is in an FF SLR.

If this is true, then cropping the image from an FF SLR to a 1,6
FOV, will change the DOF?
I don’t thing so…..

Br. Karsten

In calculating depth of field, you need to consider the degree of enlargement of the image - a cropped image would have to be enlarged more to produce a print of the same size as the uncropped image, so it would show less DOF.

My illustration took the diameter of the circle of confusion to be 30 microns on the sensor, assuming a modest enlargement of 10x in the final print - that's because the limt of resolution of the human eye is about 30 lines/mm on the print, and hence 300 lines/mm on the sensor - Canon apparently use a standard figure of 35 microns for the diameter of the circle of confusion.

Of course, to produce the same size of print from a 300D/10D as from 35 mm film, you have to enlarge by the 1.6x crop factor. The extra enlargement of the digital image therefore reduces its depth of field. However, it's not really such a large effect: if you use hyperfocal focussing, then the DSLR DOF might extend from, say, about 6' to infinity compared to 4' to infinity for 35 mm (or a 1Ds).

--
Neil Thomas
http://www.pbase.com/neilthomas_bham

 

[Peter G]

I keep reading that the DOF isn?t the same for a DSLR with
1.6 FOV as it is in an FF SLR.

If this is true, then cropping the image from an FF SLR to a 1,6
FOV, will change the DOF?
I don?t thing so?..

Then you framed the images incorrectly. Normally you don't shoot 35mm with plans to crop out 1.6 FOV crop, you use the whole frame.

If you apply the above logic to any two camares. You can shoot Large format and clip out a a tiny portion equal to tiny digicam sensors and there will be no difference in DOF. This is clearly not right.

DOF difference are evident when you use the same framing the same subject (same FOV), with different size film/sensor which will give different focal lengths.

When framed the same (ie correctly), the differences in DOF is exactly proportional to the difference between focal lengths.

Peter

 

[cx532]

Hmmm not sure that's right. as I understand it, the bigger the sensor / film size the less DoF. So you'll get more DoF with a 10D / 300D than with full frame 35mm, and more DoF with 35mm than with Medium format etc. etc.

That said, you'll be able to produce plenty of DoF on a 300D stopped down to say f11 or f16 with normal or wide angle lenses, ie up to 35mm or so. The high ISO will help keep the shutter speed up too.

Of course, to produce the same size of print from a 300D/10D as
from 35 mm film, you have to enlarge by the 1.6x crop factor. The
extra enlargement of the digital image therefore reduces its depth
of field. However, it's not really such a large effect: if you use
hyperfocal focussing, then the DSLR DOF might extend from, say,
about 6' to infinity compared to 4' to infinity for 35 mm (or a
1Ds).

--
Neil Thomas
http://www.pbase.com/neilthomas_bham

 

[Herlev DK]

I keep reading that the DOF isn?t the same for a DSLR with
1.6 FOV as it is in an FF SLR.

If this is true, then cropping the image from an FF SLR to a 1,6
FOV, will change the DOF?
I don?t thing so?..

Then you framed the images incorrectly. Normally you don't shoot
35mm with plans to crop out 1.6 FOV crop, you use the whole frame.

If you apply the above logic to any two camares. You can shoot
Large format and clip out a a tiny portion equal to tiny digicam
sensors and there will be no difference in DOF. This is clearly not
right.

DOF difference are evident when you use the same framing the same
subject (same FOV), with different size film/sensor which will give
different focal lengths.

When framed the same (ie correctly), the differences in DOF is
exactly proportional to the difference between focal lengths.

Peter

So what you are saying is that if the cmos was e.g 100Mpix, then the DOF would be much wider/bigger?

Br. Karsten Stroemvig, Copenhagen Denmark

 

[Peter G]

NO. Pixels don't enter the equation.

It is FOV and focal length.

I keep reading that the DOF isn?t the same for a DSLR with
1.6 FOV as it is in an FF SLR.

If this is true, then cropping the image from an FF SLR to a 1,6
FOV, will change the DOF?
I don?t thing so?..

Then you framed the images incorrectly. Normally you don't shoot
35mm with plans to crop out 1.6 FOV crop, you use the whole frame.

If you apply the above logic to any two camares. You can shoot
Large format and clip out a a tiny portion equal to tiny digicam
sensors and there will be no difference in DOF. This is clearly not
right.

DOF difference are evident when you use the same framing the same
subject (same FOV), with different size film/sensor which will give
different focal lengths.

When framed the same (ie correctly), the differences in DOF is
exactly proportional to the difference between focal lengths.

Peter

So what you are saying is that if the cmos was e.g 100Mpix, then
the DOF would be much wider/bigger?

Br. Karsten Stroemvig, Copenhagen Denmark

 

[psd250]

... are hideous.

Thanks.

Pat

People keep posting about the advantage of shallow DOF but what I
would like to know is, how will this camera be for extreme depth of
field? Is it typically better than or worse than prosumer
digicams? I assume it would depend on the lens.

People talk about shallow DOF -- like in a portrait -- because
digital P&S cameras aren't able to do this. Personally, I think
the advantage of an SLR over a digicam is being able to control
DOF. ( Well, manual focus, AF speed, ISO, and all that ... but I'm
trying to stay on topic! )

I shoot lots of landscapes and need a very deep depth of field.
Thoughts?

I think you'll probably have to use a wide lens ( for FOV, not for
DOF ), and smallish apertures, like f/11 to f/16. Then you should
be able to make photos like these:

http://valhallaphotos.com/html/Galleries/LandscapeGalleries.htm

--
Pat Regan