Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Sat Dec 20, 2014 9:01 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2008 3:39 am 
So, I've been reading up on how to attempt to achieve accurate sharpness and vast DoF in landscaping photos. Some of the concepts sorta make my head spin.

For most cameras, it sound like the aperture sweet spot is around f/8 through f/13 range. I assume the quality of the lens has an impact on how wide a range that maximum sharpness resides in.

Now, since you use blurred DoF creatively when wide open, I don't see diffraction being an issue at that point. However, but you are going to massive depth of field and cranking it up to f/16 and beyond, it sounds like diffraction becomes an issue for most digital cameras.

Here's a quote I stole from Thom Hogan's D80 review

"The smaller photosite size also brings with it a new issue: diffraction limitations. Without going into the details, visible diffraction starts to show up somewhere between f/11 and f/16 on the D80, while it's about a stop lower than that on the D70s. If you were taught to "set f/22 and hyperfocal distance" for landscape photography, you'll want to relearn that it's "set f/13 and hyperfocal distance" if you want to maximize acuity and take full advantage of that resolution boost."

f/13 seems fairly shallow for some landscape applications. Especially if you are trying to play up the depth of the photo with foreground elements.

That being said, I still find myself cranking up to F/22 or 25 when I'm composing a landscape and I have not yet noticed a significant degradation in quality. Not compared to something like upping the ISO. Are my eyes poor? Well, yes, I wear glasses so I guess that's true.

However, what I'm trying to get at is if this is anything most photographers have to worry about. I understand that if you are blowing up images for print or posters or whatever, you need that critical sharpness. For the majority of enthusiasts, is it even worth worrying about a small dip in sharpness if it means your shot composition suffers?

I'd like to hear thoughts from photographers who have contemplated this in the field before, and what they decided to go with. The sharpest possible shot, or the one with the intended effect they wanted to achieve.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2008 9:22 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:30 pm
Posts: 9833
Location: UK
Hi Syncharmony,

It's a fascinating topic. I looked at Depth of Field as it relates to sensor size in the thread Full-frame Sensors Are Better - Fact or Fiction?. I then followed up with the thread Full-frame or Cropped Sensors: Which is best for Landscapes?.

I'm not sure if those threads will answer all your questions but if not they contain useful links to some off-site resources which may also be relevant.

Bob.

_________________
Olympus OM-D E-M1 + M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8, Lumix 7-14mm f/4, Leica DG Summilux 15mm f/1.7 ASPH, M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8, M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm 1:1.8.
Leica D Vario-Elmar 14mm-150mm f/3.5 - f/5.6 ASPH.
OM-D E-M5, H-PS14042E, Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2008 10:18 am 
Syncharmony wrote:
So, I've been reading up on how to attempt to achieve accurate sharpness and vast DoF in landscaping photos. Some of the concepts sorta make my head spin.

For most cameras, it sound like the aperture sweet spot is around f/8 through f/13 range. I assume the quality of the lens has an impact on how wide a range that maximum sharpness resides in.

Now, since you use blurred DoF creatively when wide open, I don't see diffraction being an issue at that point. However, but you are going to massive depth of field and cranking it up to f/16 and beyond, it sounds like diffraction becomes an issue for most digital cameras.

Here's a quote I stole from Thom Hogan's D80 review

"The smaller photosite size also brings with it a new issue: diffraction limitations. Without going into the details, visible diffraction starts to show up somewhere between f/11 and f/16 on the D80, while it's about a stop lower than that on the D70s. If you were taught to "set f/22 and hyperfocal distance" for landscape photography, you'll want to relearn that it's "set f/13 and hyperfocal distance" if you want to maximize acuity and take full advantage of that resolution boost."

f/13 seems fairly shallow for some landscape applications. Especially if you are trying to play up the depth of the photo with foreground elements.

That being said, I still find myself cranking up to F/22 or 25 when I'm composing a landscape and I have not yet noticed a significant degradation in quality. Not compared to something like upping the ISO. Are my eyes poor? Well, yes, I wear glasses so I guess that's true.

However, what I'm trying to get at is if this is anything most photographers have to worry about. I understand that if you are blowing up images for print or posters or whatever, you need that critical sharpness. For the majority of enthusiasts, is it even worth worrying about a small dip in sharpness if it means your shot composition suffers?

I'd like to hear thoughts from photographers who have contemplated this in the field before, and what they decided to go with. The sharpest possible shot, or the one with the intended effect they wanted to achieve.



Hi

What focallenght do you use that you need f22-f25 to get dof from front to back......and how far do you usually stay away from the objects closest to your lens in a scene.
I have never used an aperture smaller than f16 and i managed pretty well in getting sharp focus from front(few feet) to back(infinity). Maybe its because i dont use lenses longer than 22-24mm for landscapes.
I seldom use hyperfocal distance.......i usually focus on an object close by....then put the lens on MF and recompose the photo. I don't think wideangle lenses are very capable of getting the far horizon in a scene tack sharp, no matter what lens or aperture you use. So if you get the first 20-30 meters sharp the whole foto will look just fine.

I would really like to see the difference in diffraction and no diffraction in a big print .....i allready heard a lot of people mentioning what diffraction can cause...but i have never seen it.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2008 10:55 am 
I try not to go above f/16 but remember that while you may think that f/13 does not give you a sufficient DOF, the perceived DOF is larger on a APS-C DSLR than it is on an full-frame SLR.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2008 11:10 am 
Well i have some shots at f/22 with great results even at the 100% crops at the corners. I tried landscaping once at f/16 but there was some blurring and that just doesn't look good IMO when it comes to landscaping.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2008 5:14 pm 
Houtmeyers Peter wrote:
Syncharmony wrote:
So, I've been reading up on how to attempt to achieve accurate sharpness and vast DoF in landscaping photos. Some of the concepts sorta make my head spin.

For most cameras, it sound like the aperture sweet spot is around f/8 through f/13 range. I assume the quality of the lens has an impact on how wide a range that maximum sharpness resides in.

Now, since you use blurred DoF creatively when wide open, I don't see diffraction being an issue at that point. However, but you are going to massive depth of field and cranking it up to f/16 and beyond, it sounds like diffraction becomes an issue for most digital cameras.

Here's a quote I stole from Thom Hogan's D80 review

"The smaller photosite size also brings with it a new issue: diffraction limitations. Without going into the details, visible diffraction starts to show up somewhere between f/11 and f/16 on the D80, while it's about a stop lower than that on the D70s. If you were taught to "set f/22 and hyperfocal distance" for landscape photography, you'll want to relearn that it's "set f/13 and hyperfocal distance" if you want to maximize acuity and take full advantage of that resolution boost."

f/13 seems fairly shallow for some landscape applications. Especially if you are trying to play up the depth of the photo with foreground elements.

That being said, I still find myself cranking up to F/22 or 25 when I'm composing a landscape and I have not yet noticed a significant degradation in quality. Not compared to something like upping the ISO. Are my eyes poor? Well, yes, I wear glasses so I guess that's true.

However, what I'm trying to get at is if this is anything most photographers have to worry about. I understand that if you are blowing up images for print or posters or whatever, you need that critical sharpness. For the majority of enthusiasts, is it even worth worrying about a small dip in sharpness if it means your shot composition suffers?

I'd like to hear thoughts from photographers who have contemplated this in the field before, and what they decided to go with. The sharpest possible shot, or the one with the intended effect they wanted to achieve.



Hi

What focallenght do you use that you need f22-f25 to get dof from front to back......and how far do you usually stay away from the objects closest to your lens in a scene.
I have never used an aperture smaller than f16 and i managed pretty well in getting sharp focus from front(few feet) to back(infinity). Maybe its because i dont use lenses longer than 22-24mm for landscapes.
I seldom use hyperfocal distance.......i usually focus on an object close by....then put the lens on MF and recompose the photo. I don't think wideangle lenses are very capable of getting the far horizon in a scene tack sharp, no matter what lens or aperture you use. So if you get the first 20-30 meters sharp the whole foto will look just fine.

I would really like to see the difference in diffraction and no diffraction in a big print .....i allready heard a lot of people mentioning what diffraction can cause...but i have never seen it.


Usually I'm within 18-24 mm when doing landscapes for focal length. I never actually considered that focal length has an impact on apparent Depth of Field.

As for how far away, it all depends on the setting. Usually at least 5-10 feet away, but I would like the ability to set-up a low vantage point for some shots. I guess that would be the only time I would really have to worry about using a very small aperture.

So far, I've been using the old "focus about a third into the scene from the bottom of the frame". If the foreground subject is too close, I don't end up liking the end result if I focus for it. I like it more when I focus a little past the foreground subject and then use my DoF preview to see if it's in focus.

Well, I "try" to use my DoF preview button, but sometimes the results are so dark, it just makes more sense to fire off a shot and check the LCD.

I think next time I find a good landscape with subject matter at varying distances, I'm just going to set up, set it in Aperture priority, and go from f/11 to my smallest opening and then compare the results and see what is most pleasing to my eyes.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2008 5:48 pm 
Hi again

Have you tried using a dofcalculator. If you use lenses between 18-24mm there's no need to ever stop down any further than f14-16 to get a depht of field from about 3-4 feet to infinity. Focussing at 1/3 of the scene is not a bad rule....much better than focussing at the horizon.

Here's a dofcalculator........http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

The only thing you need to do is to fill in some info in the required fields
1; Cameratype : D80 2; focal lenght used ( 18,20,22,24) 3; the aperture used (f-stop). 4; Distance to closest object in the scene you want to be in focus. Clik Calculate and the dofcalculator will give you exactly how much dof you have. The depht of field is even closer to the camera than the closest object in the scene......so you could even use a larger aperture and still get the required depht. You will see that there's no need to risk diffraction by using an aperture thats much to small. You will also see that you need a smaller f-stop to get maximum depht if you use a lens with a longer focal lenght. The shorter the focal lenght of the lens you use the more depht you get with an equal aperture.


Let the dofcalculator calculate a few situations with the focal lenght you mostly use( 18-20-22-24 mm) and with a few different apertures(f8-f11-f16) and closest object distances( 4-8-12 foot). Write it down on a small piece of paper and glue this in your lenscap. This is very usable information in the field.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group