[tuco]

... I've never used a MF camera, so I won't pretend to understand why you would use one to take pictures,...., but I can't say I've ever wanted to record stubble on someone's face or nose hairs, while deliberating making the rest of the person a blurry background.

That picture of mine with the shallow DOF was taken at f2.8, 1/30th second, ISO400 film with natural light. Do you see any room with that ISO to get more DOF? Any slower of a shutter speed and motion blur is a risk. And there was only f2.4 available on the lens. And that was with a 105mm lens ( approx equal to 35mm on APS-C).

Now imagine shooting the same scene with a 360mm lens under the same conditions on an 8x10 and close to the same working distance. You'd have razor thin DOF under that light level. So developing photographic styles working around and with shallow DOF under ambient conditions is born out of necessity with larger formats. Sometimes people shooting APS-C tend to forget that since they can easily achieve lots of DOF under ambient light with a 35mm lens with lots of ISO choices.

---

Last edited by tuco; 05-06-2014 at 10:02 AM.

[jsherman999]

This would have been a fun excersize if the images were larger than 'tiny'.

Almost any lens, Kit 18-55 to Zeiss is going to look very similar at these display sizes. Also, I will agree with PP being too heavy. Lose 50% of the make-up, we're supposed to be looking at skin quality here

[normhead]

Yes, Norm, I have a 4x5 and I post in a large format photography forum. I have owned a 4x5 for about 20 years and shoot it now and then and certainly not as much as medium format. Since I never seen you post any of your film shots, I can only guess you don't shoot it much if at all except maybe for some class you took?

That why I posted picture by famous artists who did shoot large format... just saying, many of the most famous were great at keeping their whole subject in focus. You constantly ignore the historical perspective, narrow DoF is an artistic conceit championed by a group of photographers led by Alfred Stieglitz. It was not at the time of it's invention nor has it ever been universally accepted. The ƒ64 group, which included Ansel Adams championed a completely different perspective. Not everyone is, or ever was in love with narrow DoF. Personally, myself and many others find the whole extreme narrow thing tedious and un-inventive. IN fact if you go into landscape and wildlife you'll barely ever see it used except out of necessity. I haven't shot large format since I left school. That doesn't mean I haven't forgotten the challenges.

SO all you've said here is you like shooting large format for narrow DoF. I liked shooting large format for tilt shift controls and intense image quality. I'm not seeing a problem with either of those approaches, unless one of us starts trying to say all large Format photographers prefer narrow DoF features of large format. Many of us did our best to overcome them and produce large completely in focus stunning photographs through the manipulation of the lens position and tilt, and the incredible detail of the Large format sensor size. My whole studio class was devoted to that. As I said, in many assignments ,if you didn't get your whole subject in focus, you failed. Picking part of the subject and just emphasizing that one part, any fool can do that.

Just putting out a different perspective to the endless barage of "I have to have an FF for narrow DoF" non-sense. The opposite view is, many really good photographers, would have considered it displayed a lack of skill. They would have failed my studio class.

Much of the narrow DoF stuff here is proposed as if it's universally accepted, and there are no other perspectives on the subject, and that's just wrong.

I'd be happier with a statement like, "you'll be happier with an FF if you are hoping to achieve narrow DoF, but that may not actually suit your style." And leave it up t the individual to decide if that's important to him. Saying I need an FF for narrow DoF, well first you have to establish that the person actually wants that. Not everyone does. Or not everyone would buy a camera just for that. You have lots of narrow DoF opportunities with your APS_c gear. You have to be a bit of a narrow DoF enthusiast to require equipment , just to achieve more narrow DoF than APS-c offers. Not that there's anything wrong with that if you are.

Now if you're a professional and you want a distinctive look to set you apart from the amateurs, that's a whole different argument, and definitely one that leans towards MF.

[tuco]

That why I posted picture by famous artists who did shoot large format... .

Geez, Norm, how long did you mull that one over.

[claytonwang]

Thank you for all the insight!

[normhead]

Geez, Norm, how long did you mull that one over.

I've been away on a trip, away from the internet...

[Wild Mark]

I've been away on a trip, away from the internet...

Posting just for fun

The first is SMC Pentax K 28mm f2 with the second being the Sigma 8-16mm - same scene same time and roughly the same settings

Obviously the FoV is different but I could not help that

[geomez]

Posting just for fun

The first is SMC Pentax K 28mm f2 with the second being the Sigma 8-16mm - same scene same time and roughly the same settings

Obviously the FoV is different but I could not help that

Starbursts

[Driline]

The K-28 kills the Sigma.....

[Wild Mark]

Emphatically agree. The detail in the starbursts is one indicator.

While I PP both images it was clearly evident that the colour palette in the K2/28 was far superior. That lens just kept on giving options together with better sharpness (although differences in FoV on the same cropped sensor has clearly played a role so I shouldnt be too harsh).

[normhead]

That's a terrible SIgma 8-16 image... is that the best you have?



It looks like motion blur on your sample. Check the images in the 8-16 thread. Either you just didn't get a good image, or your lens has an issue.

[Wild Mark]

The exposure time was 5 seconds from memory - I suspect motion blur. That said it was fairly still (except water -) and I did have the camera tripod mounted.

I have a good copy, photos earlier that day were sharp so it probably is a function of shutter speed.

That said the 2/28 was an 8 second exposure ...... more testing required

---------- Post added 05-26-14 at 01:15 PM ----------

Also, the sea mist was very prominent. This would in part explain the less than sharp starbursts

---------- Post added 05-26-14 at 01:19 PM ----------

Doh - got it the wrong way round. Sigma was exposed for 8 seconds while the SMC Pentax exposure was 5 seconds. With sea mist that could be enough explanation.

I still think the SMC Pentax was superior

[normhead]

The exposure time was 5 seconds from memory - I suspect motion blur. That said it was fairly still (except water -) and I did have the camera tripod mounted.

I have a good copy, photos earlier that day were sharp so it probably is a function of shutter speed.

That said the 2/28 was an 8 second exposure ...... more testing required

---------- Post added 05-26-14 at 01:15 PM ----------

Also, the sea mist was very prominent. This would in part explain the less than sharp starbursts

---------- Post added 05-26-14 at 01:19 PM ----------

Doh - got it the wrong way round. Sigma was exposed for 8 seconds while the SMC Pentax exposure was 5 seconds. With sea mist that could be enough explanation.

I still think the SMC Pentax was superior

Sometimes I just get images that just make me scratch my head... did the wind shake my tripod? Did I kick the tripod during a long exposure, just what the heck happened? Sometimes you can come up with a reason, sometimes it remains one of those mysteries of the universe.

[Wild Mark]

Good call re: reason - who knows???

I'll post a better image tonight when I get home.

[Wild Mark]

That's a terrible SIgma 8-16 image... is that the best you have?



It looks like motion blur on your sample. Check the images in the 8-16 thread. Either you just didn't get a good image, or your lens has an issue.

Hmm Im not sure your image is any sharper