Depth of Field with Medium Format vs Nikon D3 - I need advice

[kendal]

I have to do some product photography (small products in the size of a laptop) for what I need the maximum depht of field.

I have the following options:
- Nikon D3 & 85mm f/2.8D PC-E NIKKOR (in house)
- Leaf AFi 7 & Schneider-Kreuznach AFD Xenotar 80 mm / 2.8 PQS (rental place)

Which System gives me more Depth of field?

[Frank Doorhof]

If they are stable you will get better results with MF.

Let me explain.
When you shoot on f16 or higher (a bit dependent on the DSLR) with a DSLR you will find diffraction creeping in.
On some DSLRs allready above f8.0

With MF you will have much less problems with this.

However, you will need a smaller aperture to get equal DOF on MF compared to a DSLR (larger sensor on the MF).

For stable product shots this is not a real problem, you can fire strobes twice or three times if you need more power to shoot for example on f22 or f32.

So in short with a MF system you will get a sharper picture when shooting with small apertures, taking into account that you will need more power than with a DSLR.

[paulmoorestudio]

I have to do some product photography (small products in the size of a laptop) for what I need the maximum depht of field.

I have the following options:
- Nikon D3 & 85mm f/2.8D PC-E NIKKOR (in house)
- Leaf AFi 7 & Schneider-Kreuznach AFD Xenotar 80 mm / 2.8 PQS (rental place)

Which System gives me more Depth of field?

I believe if using the same f stop you should get more depthoffield from the 80mm regardless of the sensor involved.. just a fact,
the shorter the lens the more depth of field..  while close in mm the dslr 85 acts as a short tele and the xenotar is a normal.
If it were me and I needed max depth of field and wanted the highest overall quality, I would use the MFDB and back up a bit.. and not shoot at minimum aperture..by backing up it would mimic the angle of view of the 85mm  dslr

[kendal]

If they are stable you will get better results with MF.

Let me explain.
When you shoot on f16 or higher (a bit dependent on the DSLR) with a DSLR you will find diffraction creeping in.
On some DSLRs allready above f8.0

With MF you will have much less problems with this.

However, you will need a smaller aperture to get equal DOF on MF compared to a DSLR (larger sensor on the MF).

For stable product shots this is not a real problem, you can fire strobes twice or three times if you need more power to shoot for example on f22 or f32.

So in short with a MF system you will get a sharper picture when shooting with small apertures, taking into account that you will need more power than with a DSLR.

thank you for your answer.

- So with MF I can stop down to f32 without getting in trouble with diffraction?
- MF @ f32 gives me more depth of field than Full Frame DSLR @ f16?

[Frank Doorhof]

diffraction will always be a limiting factor, but it depends on how and when.
With the 5D I can see it creeping in on f16 on most lenses.
With the Aptus 22 on the mamiya RZ67ProII I haven't seen it yet, although I did shoot some f22 material.
On the 645AFD/III I have seen some on f32 but on f22 everything looks still tacksharp.
But again that's with the Aptus22, or in other words, low MP's and big sensor.

T&S will give you indeed more options, but depending on the product that can also be an advantage.

What I did not notice the first time is the lens choice.
Remember that on MF you will have to choose a different lens than on a crop or DSLR FF camera.
If you want the same character in the shot.

[geesbert]

i am facing this problem everytime i am shooting a burger. my client wants everything in focus, front to back. that is just not possible by rules of physics, regardless of format. you didn't state the shape of the product. if it is roundish, like my burger, it is tough. you have to decide what are the most important parts of the product and try to get the plane of focus onto them. having a T/S lens helps a lot.
If the subject is flat, having tilt is a very good solution, but you'll introduce perspective distortion, which can be corrected with a view camera, but not really with a T/S lens.
Unfortunately the closer you get to your subject, the more diffraction will kick in. this is the reason why landscape Photographers can stopp down to even f64 without major problems.
Schneider's macro lenses are recommended to be used only to f11, just because of that.

a few tricks can help:  

- the perception of sharpness very much depends on the texture of the object. decide what is important and focus onto that.  

- Use Live view and a laptop.

- back off! leave space around. tell the client that they get space to crop, they'll like that. by backing off the relative depth of field is increased. with a  Nikon with their 11MP or whatever you might end up only getting some 6-8MP, if that is sufficient go for it. if not go Aptus.

- the definitively best solution is a View camera with a MFDB. but if you're not familiar with it, it won't help.


stefan

[lisa_r]

I would not worry about diffraction for now. Try what you have - the tilt/shift should get you what you need. Also, you could try a 50mm on the Nikon which will be similar to what you would have with the 80 on MF. I shoot products with the Canon 70-200, 100 macro, 85 1.8 every week and we get images as sharp as we need. Even stopped down to f16 or more. Try it.

[gwhitf]

I did this test accidentally when i was testing the 1ds3 versus my P30+.

I set up a still life shot and shot the exact same field of view with, (I think), the 85 on the 1ds3 and the 80 on the Phase. (No bitching here about the lenses not matching).

What I saw was, at about f11 or so, the 1ds3 had a much LONGER area in focus. At that point, I was simply testing what I'd call resolution or sharpness.

The Smaller Format will in general always have greater depth of focus. Imagine if I'd done that same shot also with a Deardorff 8x10; imagine how short the depth would have been if the focus distance was about four feet or so.

So the Nikon will win, in your situation. So you can cross that off your list, and then move on to the question about the quality of the lenses.

This is why people here come up with that silly phrase "3D effect" with medium format. They're seeing less inherent depth of focus with the larger format, versus 35.

Imagine if there was a 6x7 digital chip, and imagine how sweet that would look, shot wide open. But that's not what you're testing here; I simply started dreaming again.

Another higher-hassle approach would be to shoot two frames of each setup -- a front focus area, and then a back focus area, and then strip them together, but trust me, it sounds easy, but it's not. Very time consuming, but sometimes, it's just necessary.

[Nick-T]

Another higher-hassle approach would be to shoot two frames of each setup -- a front focus area, and then a back focus area, and then strip them together, but trust me, it sounds easy, but it's not. Very time consuming, but sometimes, it's just necessary.

It's real easy George just use helicon

Nick-T

[gwhitf]

It's real easy George just use helicon

Nick-T

yes, the problem is: the size of the objects change ever so slightly when you change the focus, and they never line up.

Somebody else posted a photo of their camera the other day, where they moved the whole camera to focus rather than the bellows/rails. That would work too.

I can't imagine shooting a catalogue or something, with fifty or a hundred objects, and then have to strip that many together.

G.W.

[Dustbak]

When Max depth of field is required I would opt to go for the Nikon. Use the 85 with the appropriate amount of tilt. You have to sharpen up the image anyway so even when diffraction does kick in at around f16 you still will have more depth of field. The Nikon will generate a softer image that you need to sharpen up more than the MF no matter what aperture you use so you migh as well allow for some diffraction.

I do quite some jewelry lately and I am really lusting for the HTS, just for this reason. Many of my clients don't get the concept of selective focus. (eventually I will treat myself to something that allows me full movements just not yet)

[Nick-T]

yes, the problem is: the size of the objects change ever so slightly when you change the focus, and they never line up.

Correct George, Helicon takes care of the effective change of focal length (can't believe I used to do it manually).

I can't imagine shooting a catalogue or something, with fifty or a hundred objects, and then have to strip that many together.

G.W.

Agreed that would be a nightmare, bring on the HTS.

Nick-T

[klane]

There is always the view camera option....seems like an obvious choice to me.

[BernardLanguillier]

If they are stable you will get better results with MF.

Let me explain.
When you shoot on f16 or higher (a bit dependent on the DSLR) with a DSLR you will find diffraction creeping in.
On some DSLRs allready above f8.0

With MF you will have much less problems with this.

Franck,

Allow me to disagree with this... my view is that the smaller the format, the better the compromise between DoF and diffraction.

A D300 would be better than the D3 still.

A Panasonic G1 would be better than the D300.

A G10 would be better than the G1 and might be the perfect solution actually as far as resolution and DoF are concerned.

Of course, sharpness is not the only factor, tone and DR also come into play and FF might in the end be the best compromise all things considered.

Cheers,
Bernard

[oscar falero]

What I saw was, at about f11 or so, the 1ds3 had a much LONGER area in focus. At that point, I was simply testing what I'd call resolution or sharpness.

The Smaller Format will in general always have greater depth of focus. Imagine if I'd done that same shot also with a Deardorff 8x10; imagine how short the depth would have been if the focus distance was about four feet or so.

This is one reason why even in the Digital MF world many photographers who shoot mostly small products such as jewelry, benefit from a cropped sensor(Aptus 65) versus a "wanna be Full Frame sensor (Aptus 75).

3D in film as in digital comes down "real estate"  film or sensor size. So bring on that 6x7 sensor skip the square all together and only make it 24MP. Even the 645 aspect is borderline MF and too narrow. Sorry I must have been having the same dream.

[Kumar]

Would a Nikon D3 be usable with a Nikon PB-4 Bellows? This bellows' lens panel can shift and swing for DOF and perspective control, and you could mount any lens you want with the appropriate adapter. Regular Nikon lenses would focus only in the macro range, so Digitars or high quality enlarging lenses and such might be usable. It is a non-AI mount - completely manual - no electronic contacts at all.
Caveat: Some cameras cannot be used with non-AI mounts. They can get damaged! Some cameras can be used, but the prism may not clear the bellows mounting panel, and you would need to use an extension ring to get the clearance.
If you think you could get the job done with this bellows, PM me. I have one for sale.

Cheers,
Kumar

[joern_kiel]

Tried the new Nikkor PC-E 45mm some days ago and the lens does what the MTF promised. Sharp without nearly any diffraction at f32.
Great tone and contrast even with hard back lightning.

On the other hand none of my H-lenses (28/50-110/100/120/150) performed that good with max. closed aperture. They work best at f8-f11, the zoom and macro up to f16.

[PatrikR]

Tried the new Nikkor PC-E 45mm some days ago and the lens does what the MTF promised. Sharp without nearly any diffraction at f32.
Great tone and contrast even with hard back lightning.

On the other hand none of my H-lenses (28/50-110/100/120/150) performed that good with max. closed aperture. They work best at f8-f11, the zoom and macro up to f16.

I agree with Joern on H-lenses. You don't want to go beyond f 16.

When I shoot smaller objects like size of a coffee machine I often pull the camera further back from the product to be shot and thus helping the depth of field. I have a P45 so I can easily sacrifice some resolution for the favor of depth of field. Sometimes I have to pull way back that the effective sensor size of my P45 is not bigger than the Nikon D3s so my advice would be to shoot with Nikon.

Just one thought...

[AndreNapier]

Considering the minimum focusing distance for Nikkor 85mm I am assuming that your subject is not very small in size. Why don't you opt for normal/wide lens and increase the depth of field this way. If I remember correctly Schneider 40mm renders everything in  perfect focus from 40cm to infinity at F16. BTW I do not know much about product photography.
Andre

[Morgan_Moore]

Whacky thoughts..

You need the chip with the densest pixels - I dont know what that is - might be a crop from a MF chip or is might be an APS camera ! ! !

ie for DOF you need a small chip

D300 might be the thing or a crop from a 1ds111 - same res as the D3 - smaller chip/crop

dont know how diffraction will affect though - dont really think you can go beyond F16 with any digital

D300 85 T/S

I am no product expert either but think moving in the 45 direction could give an unflattering perpective (that may of course be correctable)

Whacky thought two..

shoot with a really wide lens and sort out the perspective in PS

Interestingly I dont think wide lenses give more depth of field - just more percieved DOF - once you start cropping and and enlarging a wide lens image the DOF is the same

S