Maximizing DoF with a 35mm lens on MF

[donkittle]

Hey all, I'm shooting with a Leaf Aptus 22MP back and a Mamiya 35mm (I guess around 23mm equiv.) and wondering how to maximize my DoF for landscape photography.

I set up a shot with a log/beach in the foreground, rocks and trees mid-ground and city scape in the background.  I focused on the log at f16 and the image was brilliantly sharp around the log but the rocks where quite soft and the city very soft.  I'm not sure that going to f22 would help all that much.  The log was about 4' or 6' away (according to the distance scale on the lens).

Is there a way to get enough DoF out of this lens for a 13x19 or 16x20 print?  Do I need to go to focus stacking?

Thanks for any advise you might have.  I've been experimenting but leave for Iceland on Friday.  I'll bring my nikon as backup, but I love the look of shots out of the Mamiya/Leaf system.

Cheers, Don

[Paul2660]

Without tilt, I don't know of anyway to pull in that type of DOF with a medium format unless you focus bracket.  Medium Format by nature has a more shallow DOF than say 35mm.  So a 24mm lens on a 35mm would more than likely get the shot better. 

The ability to take a shot as you describe with Medium format wides without focus bracketing is why I moved to a Tech camera number no1 reason.  This shot would be a perfect setup for tilt as more than likely the top of the shot is sky and focus is not that critical. 

Paul Caldwell

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would suggest hyperfocal focusing. You could use the scale on the lens barrel but use the aperture 4 or aperture 8 markings instead of f/16. I guess the Aptus has nine micron pixels, in that case a CoC of 0.018 mm would be reasonable for maximum sharpness.

With the strict requirement above you cannot get focus to infinity.

I got into a similar situtuation recently, with a few flowers in the foreground and a mountain as background. Couldn't get perfect sharpness on neither 24 mm on full frame or 40 mm on 645. Tried focus bracket with two shots. What turned out best was a shot with 14/2.8 and small aperture on the FF.

If you try focus bracket, make several exposures and use f/16. Having a close and far focused image is probably not enough.


Best regards
Erik

Hey all, I'm shooting with a Leaf Aptus 22MP back and a Mamiya 35mm (I guess around 23mm equiv.) and wondering how to maximize my DoF for landscape photography.

I set up a shot with a log/beach in the foreground, rocks and trees mid-ground and city scape in the background.  I focused on the log at f16 and the image was brilliantly sharp around the log but the rocks where quite soft and the city very soft.  I'm not sure that going to f22 would help all that much.  The log was about 4' or 6' away (according to the distance scale on the lens).

Is there a way to get enough DoF out of this lens for a 13x19 or 16x20 print?  Do I need to go to focus stacking?

Thanks for any advise you might have.  I've been experimenting but leave for Iceland on Friday.  I'll bring my nikon as backup, but I love the look of shots out of the Mamiya/Leaf system.

Cheers, Don

[torger]

When it comes to maximizing depth of field it does not really differ on sensor size as you can stop down to compensate -- for the same resolution it's a zero-sum game, except that shutter speed gets longer. If your Nikon is a 36 megapixel D800 it will be hurt more by diffraction on pixel peep than your 22 megapixel Aptus, ie you will experience DoF to be a larger challenge on the D800.

With the 22 megapixel 48x36mm back it is virtually no difference between f/11 and f/16 in terms of diffraction, and f/22 is not too bad. If you need f/22 do use it.

For a lens as wide as 35mm there are quite few cases you'll gain from tilt, so don't worry to much about missing that. If you shoot with a low tripod (close to the ground) and very close foreground you'll get DoF challenges though, but for normal standup compositions it should be relatively easy to get all scene reasonably sharp for 35mm.

[hjulenissen]

Without tilt, I don't know of anyway to pull in that type of DOF with a medium format unless you focus bracket.  Medium Format by nature has a more shallow DOF than say 35mm.  So a 24mm lens on a 35mm would more than likely get the shot better. 

I think that depending on what variables are kept constant or not (often left out in the discussion) such statements can cause a lot of confusion.

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/
A 35mm on MF, can have the same angle of view, DOF, motion blur etc as an equivalent lens (using equivalent aperture) on 24x36mm.

In short: keep camera postition and exposure time constant, scale focal length and aperture with sensor size, set ISO to the appropriate value, and print both at the same size. The fundamental/geometric photo parameters should be similar, although  resolution, bokeh, DR, colour etc will probably not.

-h

[Paul2660]

In my experience, Hyperfocal will only get you so far.  Actually in my shooting environment, close in work in small tight creeks and landscapes tilt on the 35mm is very key.  I use it on almost all my work.  If I was out in the west shooting the more open grand scenic environments of Yosemite (well I guess today I wouldn't be able to do that either) I agree tilt would not be as important.

The 35SK at F11 on my IQ160 has a hyperfocal distance of about 20 feet to infinity, with mild tilt I can bring that into around 12 to 14 feet, when conditions allow I can bring that into around 12ed feet with about 1.5 degrees of tilt. 

For each lens I have I manually attempted to determine my Hyperfocal distance using a scale on a track near my house.  This is an easy process and I can setup a series of distance targets and work into the best settings.  Once I have this down, it's very easy to repeat in the field.   The Arca allowing for tilt on the 35mm for me was a big difference maker over the Mamiya 35mm or even the 28mm. 

Paul Caldwell