Medium format style shots with Canon EOS system

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>with a COC of 0.03mm; and a 10 ft focus distance:</p>

<p>with a 140mm at F16 ; subject at 10 ft one has a total front to back DOF of 1.43 feet<br>

with a 100mm at F8 ; subject at 10 ft one has a total front to back DOF of 1.45 feet<br>

with a 50mm at F2 ; subject at 10 ft one has a total front to back DOF of 1.45 feet<br>

with a 36mm at F1 ; subject at 10 ft one has a total front to back DOF of 1.4 feet</p>

<p>Thus if the COC was held constant; one just needs a super fast lens when one drops the focal length to get a shallow DOF.</p>

<p> </p>

[ken schwarz]

<blockquote>

<p>Thus a lowly F1.8 or F2 lens on any 35mm camera made in the last 75 years has a rather shallow DOF. My experience is that it is rather easy to get a shallow DOF in 35mm.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Sure, I don't disagree. But, it's not possible to get a <em>combination of a wide field of view and shallow DOF </em>as easily as you can with MF. That's part of the look of MF that's so appealing in the samples the original poster asked about. But, you can come pretty close with a high-quality fast 35mm lens like the Canon 35/1.4.</p>

[Spearhead]

 

<blockquote>

<p>>>> - no digital post-processing. Is this feasible?<br>

No. You will always need post-processing to bring out the best in your photos.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>And no great medium format shots got there without some sort of post-processing. This is Photography 101 - if you want a photo that looks "good," you have to post process. Hard to understand why you think you don't need post-processing in digital when you do in medium format unless you've never done medium format.</p>

[paul_f3]

<blockquote>

<p>"...with shallower depth of fields but, contrary to SLR photos, with a <em>very slight and uniform defocusing</em> of what's outside the focal plane."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That brings up an interesting subject that is not addressed in standard DOF charts and tables.</p>

<p>My understanding of DOF is that it is a function of (only) three determinants: magnification, aperture, and sensor size. And that focal length (apart from its effect on magnification) does not substantially effect DOF. That is to say, that if subject distance is simultaneously modified so as to keep magnification constant, that a change in focal length will not substantially effect DOF. Despite this, however, even if magnification is held constant (and DOF remains constant), a longer focal length will create a <em>much greater blur of the out of focus areas</em>.</p>

<p>Is anyone aware of any optical formulas that address this <em>degree</em> of blur in the defocused area (as opposed to the depth of sharp focus)?</p>

<p>Besides focal length, what other factors (magnification, subject distance, sensor size, aperture) effect the <em>degree of blur of the unfocused subject matter </em>(as distinct from their effect on depth of acceptably sharp focus)?</p>

<p>Unfortunately, it seems like we know more about how to control DOF than we know about how to control the degree of blur (the latter being more relevant to producing the "<em>very slight and uniform defocusing</em> of what's outside the focal plane" which you are trying to achieve).</p>

<p> </p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Paul; DOF criteria is subjective.</p>

<p>A "table" thus plugs in a number that is an accepted common "starring point" for that format or sensor. Thus number is the COC; ie the Circle of Confusion.</p>

<p>In lay terms the COC number is like how sharp a knife or cutting blade is; ie it is a physical diameter on the sensor or film that is considered "small enough to be sharp". In blades one might say a razor blade has a tight criteria for being sharp; then comes sissors; then comes say hedge trimmers; then comes mower blades.</p>

<p>Unless one knows the purpose of any image; it is hard to say what a COC number has to be.</p>

<p>Only might be just making 5x7 contact prints off one of my 5x7 Graflex slr's negatives; and one has a real large sloppy COC number; since a print can be sharp with only 7 to 10 line pairs per mm. One might have a tiny 8mm cine frame; or a James Bond Minox frame an one assigns a real tiny COC number; since one is enlarging a lot.</p>

<p>All of us have different usages for our images; all a DOF table is a guide to start with. It really is up to the end user to use his her brain and consider what they are doing.</p>

<p>An image is often growing less sharp as one moves away from the focus distance. Unless one can assign what is "good enough" there are no answers to DOF questions.</p>

<p>It is like asking how bad ones wife's food can be; how diluted beer or milk can be; how late can one be to work.</p>

<p>It is not a black and white answer. A kids camping jackknife if it has a radius of Xx microns might be too dull to shave with; ok for widdling wood; be too considered overkill for a mower blade.</p>

<p>Questions that involve an analog response seem today hard for folks to grasp on photo.net.</p>

<p>(1) One has constant "how big can I enlarge questions; but few folks can fathom that viewing distance matters</p>

<p>(2) One constant questions about flatbed scanners; and most folks have no end application; thus they cannot figure if the lessor too is ok or not.</p>

<p>(3) One has constant questions about DOF and cropped and uncropped sensors; but few folks mention what their end goals are</p>

<p>One can go back 70 years ago and find a COC of 1/2000 inch for 8mm cine; 1/1000 for 16mm cine'; 1/500 inch for some 35mm stills; 1/200 for Joe Averages Kodak folder.<br>

<br /> If ones end purpose is just some ebay photos that are say 600x800; the COC criteria can be way to tight with all formats.</p>

 

[alireza_r]

<p>You can check out this table:</p>

<p>

<p>Here you can find the equivalent aperture between different formats to yield the same depth of field.</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I only shot medium format when taking a photo class in college and just didn't like being in the dark room with all those chemicals fo so long. I much prefer shooting with my canon 5D Mark II and editing 0n my MAC Book pro and geetinng oohs and ahhs by potential customers wanering what I am doing. I get excellent Shallow DOF with my Canon 85 1.2L. Shots with that lens look great 35mm film or Digital. I get more shallow DOF with my zoom lens my 70-200mm is way better for isolation subjects. You can definetely create great shots without post processing if they are well exposed and a tripod was used. However, they can in no way compare to what I can do in post. I shoot RAW use Lightroom and Aperture and HDR techniques which would rival MF of someone who doesn't no how to develope well. Developing and priniting MF is a masters Art in itself, how you agitate, time, temp of chemicals, wash, dry, all these steps are post processing which to me are more if not just as complicated as digital post processing.</p>

[DickArnold]

I am sorry but I don't get this thread. Right now, I have hanging in my living room enlargements up to 18x24 made over the years by both medium format and digital cameras (Canon D60, XTi and 5D). I would defy anyone to look at them hanging there, well processed, decent subject matter and high quality printing and tell me which are MF and which are the D60, XTi or the 5D. I had my own darkroom and did my own 16x20 prints as I do with 13x19 now iin digital. The big difference is the limited flexibility in an RA4 darkroom compared to CS5. Don't get me wrong, I used MF a lot in weddings and still very much appreciate the quality of the lenses I used and working with a larger negative. But, I must be lacking in experience or knowledge but I don't get what is a Medium Format look. Someone tell me please what am I missing. I had a portfolio of my work printed at 13x19 that a show director was looking at to pick a piece for a show later this year. He could not differentiate the MF prints. What are you guys talking about? My darkroom work was post processing. It was rather crude. The MF wedding pictures I sent out were crudely post processed in a lab to a degree. They made my wedding prints look good. I made the ones I did in my darkroom look as good as I could but the same is true of 35mm. I spent long, hot, smelly hours in a darkroom. I would much rather sit in a chair at my computer.

[barry_hennessy_photo]

<p>I have to say that having limited exposure to medium format I'm a bit unsure of this.</p>

<p>Is it true that medium format has an intrinsically different depth-of-field 'characteristic' than aps/35mm? is it not more to do with <em>how </em>the photo was taken?<br>

And if it is that medium format has a different characteristic, then what characteristics hold for which formats? 645 vs. 6x6 vs. 6x7 etc. Is there any way that digital can achieve the same effects?</p>

<p>And finally (on a subject I know about), the point of 'no processing' of a digital image. There is simply no such thing.<br /> Either the image is shot RAW and processed by hand (or Raw processing software) or the image is shot as a JPEG and processed to the cameras presets. A digital camera is fundamentally an image <em>processing </em>machine, no way around it. In my opinion it's better to process by hand and have control over the results.</p>

<p>-Barry Hennessy</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Dick; the main point this thread is about how MF tends to have a shallower DOF than 35mm.<br /> <br /> It is not one the the more common everyday thread of print quality/resolution/argue film versus digital<br /> <br /> This is an old subject; as old as photography. ie bigger cameras tend to have a less DOF.<br /> <br /> One can take 8,16 and 35mm cine shots and the smaller formats tend to have a greater DOF too.<br /> <br /> todays cell phones and small P&S digitals have tiny lenses; and thus the what is in focus is this huge range.<br /> <br />***The poster/Paulo wants to get the "shallower DOF look" of MF with a smaller format; ie 35mm or even smaller.<br /> <br /> Optically this means one needs super fast glass with the smaller format; BUT runs out of fstop around F1.<br /> <br /> I have a 13mm F0.9 Switar for 8mm cine; but it still is not fast enough to look like a 1920's 5.5 inch F4.5 lens on my Graflex 2x3 slr.</p>

<p>This is one of the good and bad things about changing format sizes; ie it is hard to get a shallow DOF in dinky formats; and hard to get ultra wide DOF range with giant formats</p>

[ken schwarz]

<blockquote>

<p>Is it true that medium format has an intrinsically different depth-of-field 'characteristic' than aps/35mm? is it not more to do with <em>how </em>the photo was taken?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The difference is that the angle of view of a larger format is larger for a given focal length lens. The lens is simply projecting on a bigger piece of film or sensor. If you crop the medium format image to a 35mm-sized frame you will get the same result as if you had mounted that lens on the 35mm camera and taken the shot. To get the same subject size and field of view with 35mm that you have with MF, you need a wider lens and you need to move in closer. Moving in closer is what is changing the depth of field characteristic.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Barry;<br>

<br /> The characteristic of MF tending to have a shallower DOF that 35mm is one of optics.</p>

<p>If one shoots a group of 4 folks say 10 feet away with a:</p>

<p>Consider some cameras I own:</p>

<p>(1)Cellphone with 1.5mm lens<br /> (2) an old Olympus D360L 1.3 megapixel P&S digital with 5.5mm F2.8 lens;<br /> (3) a 35mm Nikon F with 50mm F1.4 lens;<br /> (4) a 6X6 cm TLR with a 80mm F2.8lens;<br /> (5) my 5x7 Graflex SLR with its No34 8.5" F4.5 ( 216mm )</p>

<p>If case (2) is wide open at 5.5mm @F2.8 ; it still will not look like the shallow DOF of the Graflex slr stopped down; ie 216mm @F32</p>

<p>http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html</p>

<p>215mm @F32 on 5x7 with a COC=.15mm and 10 feet has a DOF of 6.44 feet; 2.27 feet ahead of 10 ft; 4.17 ft behind</p>

<p>A Olympus D360 with a 5.5mm F2.8 lens an a COC=0.004mm; when focused at 10 feet focuses from infinity to within 4.7 feet from the camera.</p>

<p>If ones fastest 35mm still normal lens was a 50mm F1.4 an we use a COC=0.03; one has a 1.02 feet zone about the 10 feet focus spot.</p>

<p>****In the NIKON SCHOOL back 40 years ago they said remember if one focuses at 10 feet; you have this plus or minus 1/2 foot zone around that 10 foot; at F1.4. This is easy to remember.</p>

<p>To get this same +/- 1/2 foot zone at 10 feet is easier with a big camera with its longer normal lens;</p>

<p>it is only at F5.6 on that 5x7 Graflex slr with its 216mm lens.</p>

<p>It is roughly F8 for a 300mm lens on a 8x10 with a COC=0.2mm.</p>

<p>It is roughly F2.4 with a 80mm lens on 6x6cm with a COC of 0.045mm</p>

[paulo_cortez]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>First, sorry for taking so much time to reply to this post, which I started before I went to sleep, but I had a very busy day and only now, after putting my kid to sleep, I could sit in front of the PC. I also would like to give my thanks for all your very helpful and interesting replies – sincerely, I wasn’t expecting these numbers for this thread.</p>

<p>One thing I referred in the original was “<strong>no digital post-processing”. </strong>Well, due to my poor English, some of you misinterpreted this sentence. I meant something like “<strong>no photo manipulation with photo editing software</strong>” like, for example, no background defocusing with Photoshop. Obviously and like all of you, I do almost always some post-processing with raw files. BTW, I think this shot had some background defocusing with the aid of a photo editing software – do you agree?</p>

<p>

<p>Regarding Dick Arnold’s response, the MF style I refer “ is the emphasizing of a subject by using large apertures, with shallower depth of fields but, contrary to SLR photos, with a very slight and uniform defocusing of what's outside the focal plane”. If I thought that this wasn’t possible with a SLR, I wouldn’t have started this post. I think the table link provided by Alireza helps to explain this MF style: for example, with f3.4 with 6x7, you obtain the same DOF equivalent to a f1.4 with 35mm. Therefore, MF shots have a “tendency” to have shallower DOF in relation to smaller formats, resulting in this, I call it, “style”. IMHO, this particularity is more pronounced when the subject is kept to a certain distance, not too close, not too far. If too close, the focal plane decreases in a way such that it minimizes the differences between formats. If too far, the focal plane increases, with almost everything on focus, again minimizing the differences between formats.</p>

<p>Scott Ferris, Ken Schwarz and others referred the 35mm f1.4L as an alternative. After checking Pixel-Peeper for pictures of this lens at its maximum aperture, I’ve to agree that is a very valid alternative – not too soft or milky even wide open:<br>

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=21&perpage=12&focal_min=none&focal_max=none&aperture_min=1.4&aperture_max=1.4&res=12&p=1</p>

<p>I’ve a Nikkor 28mm f2 AI-S but the adapter for EOS bodies is too loose and gives very variable results. Before buying one of the referred lenses, I’ll give it a try with my 5D after buying a better adapter.<br>

Nathan, the article by Jack Dykinga is very interesting! Thanks a lot!</p>

<p>Paul F, love your quote about blur degree: “Unfortunately, it seems like we know more about how to control DOF than we know about how to control the degree of blur”. That’s what turns me on in MF shots!</p>

<p>For the moment, sorry for not commenting other great responses, like Kelly’s, but I need more time to read them carefully.</p>

<p>Many, many thanks to you all,<br /> Paulo</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>I've shot a lot of medium format over the years, 6x6, 6x7. I also like the "look" of the medium format camera. I also now shoot DX size digital cameras. Without going through all the math, I simply observe that a 35 or 50mm lens used at about f 2 or so gives approximately a similar look to medium format with the 80-100 mm lenses when photographing people in the typical portrait settings. With full frame your results may be different. You have to experiment to get the results you want.</p>

[DickArnold]

Thanks Kelly for the clear explanation. . I never got a larger aperture than 2.8 or 4 with the Bronica PE lenses I used on a 645 body. I have to admit I did quite a few weddings taking what background blur I got without thinking a hell of a lot about it. I guess I should have been paying more attention. I guess, however, it was ok because I got paid for every one of my weddings.. I also take what I can get with my 5D although I am not shooting for money any more. Maybe I mistakenly believed that the expressions and reactions and flattering pictures I managed to capture probably produced more customer critical assessment and satisfaction than the bokeh. I will have to rethink all of this. Besides, CS5 makes it pretty easy to modify a background these days.

[nathangardner]

<blockquote>

<p> it's not really possible to duplicate the combination of wide field and shallow depth of field that gives the look you like in MF with any 35mm system, even the full-frame 5D2</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is where stitching comes in. Instead of shooting a single shot with a 24mm lens that won't give you shallow DOF, you shoot several with a 50mm or 85mm and stitch them together, giving it a wide view with a longer lens as with a MF camera.</p>

[holger]

<p>I love the pictures you linked to this thread, especially the "Italians" by Giancarlo Rado. I am doing a similar project in b/w. It took me a long time to decide between digital and mf, and I did some comparison shots to find out about my personal preferences. In the end two things had me decide to go the MF way:</p>

<p>Depth of field, and the look of film.</p>

<p>I do mostly environmental portraits in this work, so it's not about head and shoulder portraits, but about entire persons and some of their habitat. To get the DOF and bokeh I wanted on DX/FX at this distance, I would have to use a rather long lens (85 mm f/1.8 gave the look I wanted, but not enough width). So I ended up using the longer lenses, but with a film/sensor size that had me catch the ambience too: 6x6.</p>

<p>The other detail I compared was digital vs. film (no war, please, just personal preference for a specific subject or theme). I decided to go the b/w way, but looking at Giancarlo Rados work, Fuji NPH or Kodak Portra would have been interesting, too. I shoot mostly digital in normal life, on assignment, in private. And on many projects I love the "perfect" look of digital, on others I need the high ISO of my Nikons. But for this project, I just prefered the look of film. So I decided to go the MF way.</p>

<p>Also to me time is one very limiting factor. I started using XP2 and having it developed in a pro lab nearby, but switched to FP4 and my own bathroom neg lab now. I scan the negs on a cheap Epson V600 for proofing and the internet, but have the single good ones scanned in the above mentioned lab. I now discovered a shop nearby that rents a Hasselblad scanner complete with Mac and software, so that would be an alternative.</p>

<p>Having to shoot thousands of pictures over the year (and I am not even a full pro), to me this project also is something that allows me to slow down, and I enjoy this very much. With the little time I have, I prefer to concentrate on just a few pictures, not speeding up the process itself, but reducing quantity.</p>

<p>Just my personal 2c.</p>

[barry_hennessy_photo]

<p>Kelly,</p>

<p>Thanks for the explanation. It took me a while, but I think I get it now. I suppose I'll just have to borrow some MF cameras and try them out to see exactly what happens. But this has got me thinking of aspects that I'd never thought about.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>Paulo,</p>

<p>Apologies for misinterpreting your 'no digital post-processing' bit. But as a card carrying nerd I had to make sure that was covered. </p>

<p>-Barry Hennessy.</p>

[zml]

<p>Paulo: get a camera with a lens and go take some friggin' pictures...You are overthinking the issue. </p>

<p>Besides, buy a cheap TLR 6x6 for peanuts, a few rolls of film and see if you can recreate/create "the look" you are after with film equipment. It might be the most important 50 bucks you'll ever spend as far as your photography goes...</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Here is a unwhite balanced snapshot with a cropped 1.5x sensor; an Epson RD-1. Noctilux 50mm F1 shot at F1.0. One does get a shallow focus; but one has today a expensive lens. With digital one can vary the iso setting; thus one can on a bright day lower the iso and often still shoot at F1.0. </p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/Noct/_EPS7542hpgeneratorfull.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/Noct/_EPS7542hpgeneratorfullcrop.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Here is the opposite extreme; a wide open shot with a 28mm F6 LTM Orion @F6 ; with the same Epson Rd-1. One has the typical "all in focus look"; more like Joe Averages P&S digital. Thus with this lens one cannot ever get any shallow DOF look.</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/EPSON%20R-D1/_EPS0520DRIVETHRU02SMALL.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/EPSON%20R-D1/_EPS0520DRIVETHRU02CROP1.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Here is a shot with a 1930's 12cm F6.8 uncoated Angulon wide open at F6.8; on a 7x10cm scan back:</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/cmF68/ThruWindowF68FULL.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Here is another extreme 178mm F2.5 Aero Ektar @F2.5 focused at infinity on a 4x5 digital scan back; the bird feeders are really blurred; and about 20 to 25 feet away. Lens cost 5 dollars back in the 1960's; World War 2 surplus. Camera 4x5 speed graphic; Phase one 35 megapixel scan back built about 1996. Scan area is 7x10cm; ie cropped 4x5; like all digital 4x5 backs.</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/scanback/SpeedGraphicF25AEsmall.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Same settup; but shot in infrared at stopped down to F11:<br>

<img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/scanback/SpeedGraphicF11AEsmall.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/scanback/SpeedGraphicF11AEmed.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/scanback/SpeedGraphicF11AEdetail.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[ray .]

You certainly can get shallow depth of field with a 24 f/1.4 on a 5D:<p>

 

 

[paulo_cortez]

<p>Congratulations Ray, stunning shots! You surely know how to use that gear and your results reached that MF look I was looking for. BTW, did you use ND filters for these shots?<br>

Right now, I'm waiting for a Nikon F>Canon EOS adapter which I ordered to test a Nikkor 28mm f2 AI-S with my 5D. Depending on the results, I might buy your lens or a 35mm f1.4L.<br>

Best regards,<br>

Paulo</p>

[paulo_cortez]

<p>Here's a shot of the referred Nikkor at f2 on a 5D:<br /> <img src="http://i869.photobucket.com/albums/ab255/digivet/CanonEOS5DNikkorAI-S28mmf2.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[ray .]

In bright sunlight I set the camera on ISO 50, but an ND filter might come in handy, depending. The color

shot was actually at f/1.8, the other was f/1.4. I have the first version of the 24L... purchased used in near

new condition for a lot less than a new 24L Mark II.