I recently shot the view out of my home office window with my E-510 and
Elmarit-R 2.8/28, and was surprised at the difference from a shot made
several years earlier with my F10. I do not have the apertures recorded, but
the difference in DOF is very obvious.
E-510 and Elmarit-R:
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/OldNick/Back+Yard+in+Spring.tif.html
F10:
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/OldNick/WindowView02a.JPG.html
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] Point Lobos [was Edward Weston - NY Times feature]
> The F10 actually has a 1/1.7" sensor which is a bit smaller than a 2/3"
> sensor. DOF at f/7.1 and 14mm at the hyperfocal distance of 12-1/4 feet
> should would be just over 6 feet to infinity. Since I guesstimate the
> depth of the image at perhaps 50 feet, focus at 10 feet would have given
> a DOF of 5-1/2 to 54. But, that's very little gain for taking a risk of
> losing the longer side of the DOF if you should misjudge the point of
> focus and focuse a bit too short. For example, if you actually focused
> at 9 feet vs. 10 feet the DOF on the long side would drop from 54 feet
> down to 34 feet. It's best to go for an approximation of the hyperfocal
> distance and overestimate on the long side. If you can learn to judge
> 15 feet, for example, the short side would only increase from 6 feet to
> 6-3/4 feet and you'd be assured of infinity on the long end.
>
> While I was on my long trip around the country it quickly became
> apparent to me (and quite a surprise) that my most used lens was turning
> out to be the Tamron 20-40 and almost always shot at either 20 or 40mm
> and little in between. As soon as I realized that I fired up the laptop
> and produced a little hyperfocal cheat sheet for 20 and 40mm that I kept
> in my wallet. It says:
>
> f/stop 8 11 16 22
> ====== == == == ==
> 20mm 6 4 3 2
> 40mm 20 15 10 8
>
> Those are the rounded-up hyperfocal distances in easily guesstimated
> even feet. Nearest focus, of course, is half of that. It worked very
> well for getting landscape shots with good foreground focus. I did use
> f/16 on occasion but f/11 is the limit to avoid diffraction on a 5D.
>
> I haven't done any precise calculations but, for the small F10 sensor at
> 6MP I'd guess that you're already diffraction limited above f/4 and most
> certainly by f/5.6.
>
> Incidentally, your link to the modified photo didn't work.
>
> Drs. D&D
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Moose wrote:
>
>>> and 984. 984 I really like, but would love to have it all in focus
>>> front-to-back.
>>>
>>
>> Hmmm.... Those last 11 images are from the F10. What I can't figure out
>> is how they got to that size for the gallery. My usual work flow tracks
>> aren't there and the color balance on 394 is obviously wonky. The rocks
>> weren't purple.
>>
>> And you are right, it's pretty fuzzy. Shot at f7.1, 14 mm on a 2/3"
>> sensor camera, it should have considerable DOF. Dr. D&D probably knows
>> how much - and also that resolution is probably diffraction limited @
>> f7.1
>>
>> So I've posted a new version to the gallery. Not exactly tack sharp, but
>> pretty much equal sharpness throughout. The overall slight lack of
>> definition is probably partly diffraction limiting and partly the
>> difficulty of rendering complex foliage at that size.
>> <cid:part1.02070206.00060609@gmail.com>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
