6x7 depth-of-field in landscapes

[mark liddell]

<p>I?ve been using MF for landscape for about 2 years now and I?m getting

increasingly frustrated with the limited dof with 6x7 and limitations in

imposes.</p>

 

<p>Here are some examples where the foreground is out of focus:</p>

<a

href="http://www.liddellphoto.com/landscape/images/people_beach.jpg">http://www.liddellphoto.com/landscape/images/people_beach.jpg</a>

<br>

<a

href="http://www.liddellphoto.com/landscape/images/formby_sunset.jpg">http://www.liddellphoto.com/landscape/images/formby_sunset.jpg</a>

<p>

Any composition that includes some of the foreground is impossible even

focussing close and shooting a f/16. The ?near-far? compositions are impossible

without a blurred ?far?. I?m finding that it is really restricting my

compositions and what I shoot.

</p>

<p>

It appears that scheimpflug is my only saviour if I?m to use formats larger than

35mm. There are large format/medium format hybrid cameras from linhof, horseman

etc. but they seem to be for architecture and do not have the tilt movement.</p>

<p>

I really don?t want to go down the large format/roll film back route because of

the length of time it takes to set up and how tedious and it difficult they are

to operate. I love my RB. It is quite quick to use and set up (bar the separate

shutter cocking/film advance) and pretty much idiot proof with all the interlocks.

</p>

<p>

The RB 75mm shift lens only does shift only as far as I know so it would appear

the only other possible option is the zoerk ?multi focus system? with an LF lens

(http://usa.zoerk.com/pages/p_pshift.htm) The pdf states there is an option for

leaf shuttered lenses. I?m also not crazy on wide angle lenses so this may work

- if a bit pricy!

</p>

<p>

I really wish there was a rollei SL66 equivalent in 6x7/6x8 or that I?d like

square format.</p>

<p>

Any ideas landscape guys?

[bueh]

The Fuji GX680 SLR (6x8 format) has some limited movements. I have no experience with them.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Where are you focusing? Try focusing at 40 feet for a 100mm lens at f/16 and you should get everything sharp from 19 feet to infinity. Focus at 30 feet and f/22 and you'll get from 14 feet to infinity in sharp focus. And lastly there is alway f/32 - focus at 18 feet and get everything from 9 feet to infinity in focus.

 

See the following link for calcs on other lenses:

 

http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html

[r_scott_steube]

Mamiya's RZ67 system with their Tilt/Shift Adapter ($1500 street price) for the RZ67 75mm short barrel lens is my solution to extreme depth-of-field (DoF) needs. At f/16, the DoF from maybe 20ft to infinity for an un-tilted 75mm lens, but I can adjuct the tilt up to 8 degrees which gives a f/16 DoF from perhaps 6ft to infinity. Tilting causes perspective changes, but depending on subject/composition it may or may not be a problem. The extra work of scanning film and Photoshoping can fix any perspective problems.

[wayne_crider4]

You could stop your lens down and use a loupe if you can't see the GG. Secondly try using hyperfocal focusing. On my 127mm lens there's a window cut out with scale that gives me the DOF at what ever aperture I'm shooting.

[mark liddell]

19ft to infinity isn't really near enough dof for a lot of the compositions I would like. Eg. the sand ripples were 8ft from the camera in the second pic.

 

R Scott's solution sounds pretty good. 6ft to infinity would be excellent. The perspective change shouldn't usually be too much of an issue, though I shoot only b&w so there is no way I could correct in PS. I would have to switch to an RZ though and the 75mm + tilt/shift adapter isn't cheap!

 

The fuji 6x9 would be way to heavy to lug around. My RB is as heavy as I want to go.

[pico_digoliardi]

<i>19ft to infinity isn't really near enough dof for a lot of the compositions I would like. Eg. the sand ripples were 8ft from the camera in the second pic. </i><p>

I appreciate your demanding standards. <p>

This paragraph is just an affirmation of what you know - The given DOF tables most MF manufacturers give are a bit too liberal for fine work and enlargements viewed closer than normal viewing distance. Even Hasselblad writes that one should use more conservative DOF than their earlier SWC shows on the lens (which has an active DOF indicator.) Typically, use the DOF for the appropriate degree of enlargement, in this case a rule of thumb is to use the DOF for the same focal length as if it were on a 35mm. Then enters diffraction, but not as bad as 35mm. *sigh*.<p>

You got recommendations for front tilting MF schlepable cameras and we know the earlier Rollei SL66 you mentioned is gone.<p>

That said, you need back tilt, IMHO. Front tilt ain't the same. Again, that's my Big IMHO. But if you want a small, lightweight solution with back tilt, you aren't going to find in a typical camera with viewfinder that you swing on a shoulder strap.<p>

Are you willing to entertain the idea of a compact field camera?

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

How about a wide angle? a 50mm lens focused at 5 feet and shot at f/32 gets everything from 2.5 feet to infinity in focus. If that doesn't do it then you'll need movements or an even wider lens.

[paul ron]

Which lens are you shooting with? I don't understand what limitations you're talking about. A 50mm RB lens can focus ?32 2.2' to infinity. At ?16 4.3' to infinity. So what near far limitations are you talking about? Are you using a long lens trying to capture that same DOF?

[r_scott_steube]

Hello Again. I know you stated that you are reluctant about Large Format, but it might be worth your while to check out Ken Rockwell article: Tachihara 4x5 Camera Test Review http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/tachihara.htm .

Ken makes a pretty good argument for landscape use, and the value/economy is hard to beat. Good Luck!

[ilkka]

It is quite simple really. If the smallest aperture and hyperfocal focusing on your wide angle lens does not give enough depth of field, then you need a camera with movements. Either large format or some of the other options mentioned above. Fuji 680 is probably the closest SL66 equivalent.

[david_henderson]

Well mostly I use 6x6, though if you're shooting with the camera horizontal my experience will be very relevent to yours. I use Bronicas to make some fairly big prints, and interestingly enough the dof scale on these is different (less optimistic) than on other MF cameras I've seen to the point that I just about trust them - which I certainly would not with my Mamiya 7ii.

 

With a 40mm lens at f16 I can get everything from infinity to just less than 5 feet in acceptable focus. With a 50mm lens its about 6 feet. Of course this is all subjective and I haven't worked out what the effective CoC is behind these judgments. The other aspect of subjectivity is of course that there is a difference in sharpness between those objects at the point of focus and those at the edges of your dof. If the foreground objects are supremely important to the image then you need to focus on or near it. For example with a 40mm lens I can focus at 5 feet at f22 and still get a decent infinity.

 

In other words using wide lenses I can everything in acceptable (for me) focus so long as I'm standing up and keep my feet and tripod legs out of the frame. If your standards are more demanding , or you want to shoot from closer than say 4-5 feet, then you're goinfg to need movements.

 

My greatest problems with dof and medium format are not the sort of image you describe ( sorry, your examples don't open for me) but in much closer work, but also when using the middle range lenses to shoot a distant scene with an element of foreground grasses etc. The dof offered by lenses of say 150mm is simply not very good- so for example at f22 I can't achieve acceptable sharpness at infinity and 30 feet. That, much more than the near/far issue is the problem that costs me shots or sends me off to a worse composition.

[david_henderson]

Having now persuaded my computer to open your images it does seem that you're trying to achieve focus fairly close with a middling focal length lens. To do what you seem to want you need a wide angle lens. The example below has everything from 5 feet to infinity decently sharp.<div></div>

[mark liddell]

The first shot was with a 90mm (RB67) and second with an 80mm (mamiya 7).

 

Thanks for the advice guys, I'll get hold of a 50mm for the rb and see how that works out. Getting used to a wide lens might take me a while but it sound like what I need.

[paul ron]

Ah, so that was a 90mm pushing the limits of it's DOF. Yup getting a 50mm lens will open up a whole new world for you. It's a beautiful lens capable of focusing down to an inch on the RB.

 

Although you say "getting use to it may be a problem" it's actualy getting over the bill that is generally more the problem.

 

Have fun and BTW nice pics.