I need more depth of field!

[Marvo]

Maybe this post should be in the Lenses section on second thoughts but I want to get a thread going on the general issue of depth of field.
I'm used to shooting with the 5 x 4 Sinar in the studio and having the ultimate control over the plane of focus and also regularly stopping down to f45 to get the subject sharp from front to back.
Now I'm doing what I can on the S2 but depth of field has become an issue. I'm using a standard 50mm f1.8 Nikkor and an f2.8 24-85 Nikkor. But without camera movements, f22 doesn't pull a lot of my subjects sharp from front to back. Also, once stopped down past f11 it would seem that all of my lenses start to loose definition. Can anyone tell me of their experiences on this matter and how you are all coping. I know I could go out and spend £1200 on a PC Nikkor but they only do an 85mm as far as I can see - that's a pretty long telephoto in S2 terms in the studio! Now I'm thinking 'how about a Micro Nikkor that stops down to f32'. Has anyone got the experience to tell me how much sharper a Micro Nikkor is than a standard 50mm at the f22-f32 end of the scale?
With the right piece of glass on the front of the S2 shot at the best apperture it's pretty stunning what the S2 is capable of delivering and that's what I want to deliver.
Happy snapping.
Marvo.


Just got hold of a couple of lenses to try from the nice man at my local store....
Thread with results of tests posted under "Lenses" > Lenses tested

[Topngu]

Marvo,
4x5 Sinar & S2 are two difference kind animals!how could you
compare? if you need to use macro lens i would recommend
Nikkor 105/2.8 you can go to f54...! at 1:1 ratio...even it's
only shown f32 on the lens. most the lens i had...i don't have
any problem to stop down to 22 or 32...stick around with "ED"
lens then you may happier ?...but don't compare with 4x5 lens...
please:confused:
I shot almost Nikkor lens...from fish eye to 1200mm...actualy i test
these lens for my company.

[PauHana]

Marvo;

The defraction that occurs at the smallest of apertures (f22 etc.) is generally only noticable in the most critical of applications. In addition, the S2 takes only the "sweet spot" of lens coverage (the middle) so this effect will be even less obvious. What do I do since I too have abandoned my 4x5 Sinar ? Photoshop my man, Photoshop. Focus on the near portion of your setup, shoot. Change focus to the back, shoot. Piece them together. There will be some size issues with the changing focus but they can be overcome. Hope this helps.

[Ron Green]

With your former 4x5 and a standard 150mm lens, your depth of field focused at 10' with an apeture of f32 was 7.75' - 14' (without swings and tilts). An equivalent lens on an S2, a 35mm (x1.5 = 52.5mm on CCD), focused at 10' produces a depth of field of 6.5 - 22' @ f8, 5.6' - 45' @ f11, and 4.7' - infinity @ f16. Needed swings and tilts (for perspective control) can be affected using the "Transform/Skew" command in PhotoShop. You just need to use wider lenses. As a former Linhof user, I do this regularly on architectural subjects with great success. The gain in depth of field is similar (in percentage) at closer focusing distances.
Ron Green

[Marvo]

Thanks a million for all the input guys, it's really appreciated.
Firstly, Ron,
Yes I'm extreeeeeeemly greatful that the laws of physics mean that I get a greater depth of field from the S2 than the 5x4. From my college days I recall that depth of field is a function of and is governed by the ratio of reproduction of the image onto the "film" plane, and not controlled by the focal length of the lens. Anyone remember those "circles of confusion"?
"Skewing" the image in Photoshop is great for fixing those converging virticals though isn't it!,

Secondly, Paul,
Yes, it's another advantage of the 2 thirds size S2 sensor, - we get to use the "sweet" spot of our lenses. Correct me if I'm wrong though, but my way of thinking is that if any "wooliness" is caused by the lens and we have to "blow-up" the middle of the "imaging area" more as opposed to blowing up the whole "imaging area" less to acheive the same enlargement then the wooliness is going to be more apparrent on the final reproduction of the image. In this respect I'm under the impression that the smaller sensor area is letting us down.
Thanks for the tip on the shooting 2 halves idea, I'll give that one a go. Mind you, I don't think I'll be allowing myself to get that fussy on the 200 shot catalogue I'm about to start. I like to think I'm dedicated, but ................

Thirdly, Topngu,
S2 and Sinar diferent animals?? They're from a different planet!
You're right in that there's no comparison. But on the other hand, if I can find a way of getting close enough to matching the 5x4's ability to get the pruduct sharp from front to back when required then I won't have to make a $15000 investment in a digital back for the Sinar and I'll be able to work a lot faster with the S2. It's interesting what you mention about the ED lenses, I thought that that was the way to go too. I tested the 24-85 G IF-"ED" lens against the 24-85 D IF lens and the non-ED was sharper across the board! I bought the non-ED lens and I'm very very pleased with it, but it just starts to come off the rails from f16 to f22 if excelent definition is imperative.
Have you tested any of the PC Nikkors Topngu? They go down to f45. Maybe they are built more like a lens for a 5x4.

Keep those suggestion coming folks, let's see what we can learn.

Marvo.

[Marvo]

Now you're all going to say I'm too fussy! Fussy is my middle name - blame my parents.

Marvo.