A BSI APS-C EOS R camera is coming in the second half of 2022 [CR2]

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,067
4,635
So from your point of view, when I looked at the picture the DoF was determined.
I believe the outcome was set at capture, because I only intended the picture for one use and size.
If I start cropping, printing large or someone else determining what is acceptably sharp then the fuzzy concept comes in to play.
The ‘fuzzy concept’ is the actual, accepted and published definition of DoF.

Yes, you can contrive a specific situation in which you select lens and subject parameters then generate output of a specific size and restrict the viewing of it to a fixed distance and a single person, and in that specific, contrived situation the DoF could be determined at the time of image capture.

And unless the conditions you chose matched those used as the industry standard (you print at 8x10”, view at 12”, and have 20/60 vision), the values for DoF obtained from a DoF calculator/table will not be correct for your specific, contrived situation.

But by the same token in another specific, contrived situation a broken analog clock shows the correct time twice per day.

A proper definition must be generally applicable.
 

takesome1

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 23, 2013
1,549
205
100
None your business Alaska
Even if you have your prints you view at your standard distance that still doesn’t address the subjective nature of individuals perception of ‘acceptably sharp’!

But I have never said you can’t work backwards and predetermine an output size and viewing distance to make sure what you want in acceptable focus is covered by your f stop, indeed that is exactly what dof calculators do. But that still doesn’t address the fact, and my point, that when those images are viewed at different distances the dof characteristics change.
I agree.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,067
4,635
The second aspect to the topic of DOF, occurs when you view the resultant photo. Size, cropping, viewing distance all play a part in what is perceived to be sharp and how sharp or blurry the objects in the photo are. So, now we have viewing or perceived DOF - which is what the bulk of the discussion has been about. Some have argued that this is the only definition of DOF that matters…
It’s not ‘a second aspect to the topic’, it is THE DEFINITION of DoF.

“For many cameras, depth of field (DOF) is the distance between the nearest and the farthest objects that are in acceptably sharp focus in an image. The depth of field can be calculated based on focal length, distance to subject, the acceptable circle of confusion size, and aperture.”

The related terms ‘acceptably sharp’ and ‘circle of confusion’ used in the definition require the viewing of the resulting image by an individual.

A photographer may approximate DoF in practice, adjusting f/number, focal length and subject distance to increase or decrease what viewers will eventually see as the DoF, but pressing the shutter button does not establish a fixed DoF that is a part of the image. Period. If in doubt, re-read the definition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: privatebydesign

JohnC

EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 22, 2019
219
231
Gainesville,GA
Hence why the dof calculators that were designed for film do not hold up in the digital age. “Our” acceptably sharp is quite a bit sharper than it was then.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,067
4,635
:) Not in all situations, it could be broken in such a way that just makes it run slow.
Sure, and someone with better or worse vision and longer or shorter arms than you could sneak a peek at your picture and make your carefully pre-determined DoF wrong. :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: takesome1

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,518
5,771
Hence why the dof calculators that were designed for film do not hold up in the digital age. “Our” acceptably sharp is quite a bit sharper than it was then.
No, the dof calculators hold true, what happens now is people enlarge their images with no regard for the calculators base CoC.
 

JohnC

EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 22, 2019
219
231
Gainesville,GA
No, the dof calculators hold true, what happens now is people enlarge their images with no regard for the calculators base CoC.
well, yes, that is correct... but we as a group have changed the way in which we view images (even printed ones). Now far more of us like to study them closer. I on the other hand, always have lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: privatebydesign

Rocky

EOS R
Jul 30, 2010
1,016
89
Just to throw another stone in the pond. The DOF scale on a 50mm Leica lens is not the same as a 50mm Canon lens. Because they use different number for CoC
 

kaihp

EOS R
CR Pro
Mar 19, 2012
1,015
166
The Most Ancient Kingdom of Denmark
Not sure I want to put myself into the barrage of fire here, but here goes.
The second aspect to the topic of DOF, occurs when you view the resultant photo. Size, cropping, viewing distance all play a part in what is perceived to be sharp and how sharp or blurry the objects in the photo are. So, now we have viewing or perceived DOF - which is what the bulk of the discussion has been about. Some have argued that this is the only definition of DOF that matters, totally ignoring that photographers DO INDEED refer to DOF when discussing their intent of manipulating focus/blur when setting up the camera pre-capture.

What the definition of DOF silently ignores - and complicates the discussion - is that "in focus" and "out of focus" are not hard, binary, options> there is a gradual change of the sharpness from the plane (however warped) of (maximum) focus to minimum focus (either nearest or furthest away from the camera) in the image. The DOF formula is an accepted definition of where the change from what is deemed as "in focus" to what is deemed "out of focus" is, but still subjective.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,067
4,635
What the definition of DOF silently ignores - and complicates the discussion - is that "in focus" and "out of focus" are not hard, binary, options> there is a gradual change of the sharpness from the plane (however warped) of (maximum) focus to minimum focus (either nearest or furthest away from the camera) in the image. The DOF formula is an accepted definition of where the change from what is deemed as "in focus" to what is deemed "out of focus" is, but still subjective.
Absolutely. As Bob Atkins said, DoF is “fuzzy.”

But hey, someone downloads a chart, that chart says shoot with a 100mm lens at f/8 and a subject 51 cm away, and everything 5 mm on either side of the focus point will be in focus. And somehow that’s the ‘real DoF’ and once you press the shutter button that pretty little 1 cm diameter flower will be forever enshrined in complete, crisp focus from the first petal to the last, no matter what happens after. Because there’s a chart. With numbers.
 

takesome1

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 23, 2013
1,549
205
100
None your business Alaska
But hey, someone downloads a chart, that chart says shoot with a 100mm lens at f/8 and a subject 51 cm away, and everything 5 mm on either side of the focus point will be in focus. And somehow that’s the ‘real DoF’ and once you press the shutter button that pretty little 1 cm diameter flower will be forever enshrined in complete, crisp focus from the first petal to the last, no matter what happens after. Because there’s a chart. With numbers.

If they are using the new APS-C R body we are discussing in this thread they may be disappointed.
 
Sep 30, 2021
46
135
If they are using the new APS-C R body we are discussing in this thread they may be disappointed.
A crop R would be ideal for me. I like how a 60mm lens on a crop feels and looks. I spend a lot of time using a crop body with my 60 and MPE-65 lenses. Rarely touch my FF camera or the 100mm L IS these days. Here is a recent shot jus for fun. Amazing little bees. Just wish I had left a little more room on the right and less on the left. She only allowed me a few seconds before she flew.
560E8C28-1914-4A60-B5F5-E96D9793D462.jpeg
 

takesome1

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 23, 2013
1,549
205
100
None your business Alaska
A crop R would be ideal for me. I like how a 60mm lens on a crop feels and looks. I spend a lot of time using a crop body with my 60 and MPE-65 lenses. Rarely touch my FF camera or the 100mm L IS these days. Here is a recent shot jus for fun. Amazing little bees. Just wish I had left a little more room on the right and less on the left. She only allowed me a few seconds before she flew.
Very nice.
Hand Held?
 

takesome1

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 23, 2013
1,549
205
100
None your business Alaska
Thank you. Yes, hand held. I only tend to shoot handheld as I find a tripod restrictive. Only time I use one if for long exposure stuff like Astro or landscape and those genres are a rarity for me.
Actually I thought your framing and position is good. The eye hits close to the upper right line cross for the rule of thirds.
 

Dalantech

Gatekeeper to the Small World
Feb 12, 2015
111
89
You've mentioned that you shoot without focus stacking. Perhaps you'd be willing to discuss your techniques in more detail. It would certainly be more interesting than the last 4-5 pages.
:D

I am almost always holding on to whatever the critter is perched on with my non camera hand, and then resting the lens on that same hand so that subject and camera are on the same "platform". I focus by sliding the lens on my hand, and can rotate the subject's perch to change the angle of it and/or get it looking into the camera. I will then pick a spot where I want the area of acceptable focus to start, like this Swallowtail Butterfly's proboscis, and then twist my wrist (the one holding the camera) to lay the area of acceptable focus over the critter's leading eye trying to get as much of its face in focus.

Swallowtail Portrait by John Kimbler, on Flickr

I call it the Left Hand Brace Technique and using it gives me a lot of control over where I am placing the area of acceptable focus. An angle that creates the illusion that there is a lot of depth of field is called a "magic angle" and when I first got into macro 15 years ago I would look for them. But now I create those magic angles with the way that I position the subject relative to the sensor. According to the manual for Canon's MP-E 65mm macro lens the depth of field for this next shot is less than half a millimeter -or less than half the thickness of a US dime for the metric impaired ;)

Resin Bee by John Kimbler, on Flickr

We are wired to look into the eyes of the animals that we encounter in order to gauge intent, and the eyes are the very first thing we look at. So the leading eye, or both eyes if the subject is looking directly into the camera, have to be in focus. If they are not then the entire image will be perceived as out of focus. Likewise if the eyes are in focus then the image is perceived as being in focus, so it is not necessary to get the entire subject in focus.

Also we use shadows and out of focus areas to gauge depth. Get everything in focus, and evenly lit (to avoid stacking artifacts), and the scene will look flat and that is one of the big reasons why I do not focus stack. I want to create images where it looks like the subject is popping out of the frame. My goal is not to make my photos look natural, but to keep them from looking unnatural because the suspension of disbelief also applies to still images. I want the viewer to be able to relax and just enjoy what I put in front of them, and scenes that look flat seem odd and out of place because that is not how we see the world around us.

Edit: Wanted to add that no one crops their images when they view them at 100% pixels and then prints those crops, or saves them to any device as wallpaper. Everyone who is looking for an image to print, or for wallpaper, is looking at photos edge to edge. So absolute image sharpness is a false metric and has nothing to do with image quality. But per pixel sharpness is an easy metric, there are formulas for diffraction but none for creativity, so a lot of photographers resort to focus stacking. Stacking comes with so many limitations that I would argue that it can keep a photographer from developing their creative side.
 
Last edited:

takesome1

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 23, 2013
1,549
205
100
None your business Alaska
:D

I am almost always holding on to whatever the critter is perched on with my non camera hand, and then resting the lens on that same hand so that subject and camera are on the same "platform". I focus by sliding the lens on my hand, and can rotate the subject's perch to change the angle of it and/or get it looking into the camera. I will then pick a spot where I want the area of acceptable focus to start, like this Swallowtail Butterfly's proboscis, and then twist my wrist (the one holding the camera) to lay the area of acceptable focus over the critter's leading eye trying to get as much of its face in focus.

I call it the Left Hand Brace Technique and using it gives me a lot of control over where I am placing the area of acceptable focus. An angle that creates the illusion that there is a lot of depth of field is called a "magic angle" and when I first got into macro 15 years ago I would look for them. But now I create those magic angles with the way that I position the subject relative to the sensor. According to the manual for Canon's MP-E 65mm macro lens the depth of field for this next shot is less than half a millimeter -or less than half the thickness of a US dime for the metric impaired ;)

We are wired to look into the eyes of the animals that we encounter in order to gauge intent, and the eyes are the very first thing we look at. So the leading eye, or both eyes if the subject is looking directly into the camera, have to be in focus. If they are not then the entire image will be perceived as out of focus. Likewise if the eyes are in focus then the image is perceived as being in focus, so it is not necessary to get the entire subject in focus.

Also we use shadows and out of focus areas to gauge depth. Get everything in focus, and evenly lit (to avoid stacking artifacts), and the scene will look flat and that is one of the big reasons why I do not focus stack. I want to create images where it looks like the subject is popping out of the frame. My goal is not to make my photos look natural, but to keep them from looking unnatural because the suspension of disbelief also applies to still images. I want the viewer to be able to relax and just enjoy what I put in front of them, and scenes that look flat seem odd and out of place because that is not how we see the world around us.

Edit: Wanted to add that no one crops their images when they view them at 100% pixels and then prints those crops, or saves them to any device as wallpaper. Everyone who is looking for an image to print, or for wallpaper, is looking at photos edge to edge. So absolute image sharpness is a false metric and has nothing to do with image quality. But per pixel sharpness is an easy metric, there are formulas for diffraction but none for creativity, so a lot of photographers resort to focus stacking. Stacking comes with so many limitations that I would argue that it can keep a photographer from developing their creative side.

Without a doubt the most educational post in the last 5 pages.
Thanks for sharing.
 

HenryL

EOS R3, R5
CR Pro
Apr 1, 2020
319
803
:D

I am almost always holding on to whatever the critter is perched on with my non camera hand, and then resting the lens on that same hand so that subject and camera are on the same "platform". I focus by sliding the lens on my hand, and can rotate the subject's perch to change the angle of it and/or get it looking into the camera. I will then pick a spot where I want the area of acceptable focus to start, like this Swallowtail Butterfly's proboscis, and then twist my wrist (the one holding the camera) to lay the area of acceptable focus over the critter's leading eye trying to get as much of its face in focus.

Swallowtail Portrait by John Kimbler, on Flickr

I call it the Left Hand Brace Technique and using it gives me a lot of control over where I am placing the area of acceptable focus. An angle that creates the illusion that there is a lot of depth of field is called a "magic angle" and when I first got into macro 15 years ago I would look for them. But now I create those magic angles with the way that I position the subject relative to the sensor. According to the manual for Canon's MP-E 65mm macro lens the depth of field for this next shot is less than half a millimeter -or less than half the thickness of a US dime for the metric impaired ;)

Resin Bee by John Kimbler, on Flickr

We are wired to look into the eyes of the animals that we encounter in order to gauge intent, and the eyes are the very first thing we look at. So the leading eye, or both eyes if the subject is looking directly into the camera, have to be in focus. If they are not then the entire image will be perceived as out of focus. Likewise if the eyes are in focus then the image is perceived as being in focus, so it is not necessary to get the entire subject in focus.

Also we use shadows and out of focus areas to gauge depth. Get everything in focus, and evenly lit (to avoid stacking artifacts), and the scene will look flat and that is one of the big reasons why I do not focus stack. I want to create images where it looks like the subject is popping out of the frame. My goal is not to make my photos look natural, but to keep them from looking unnatural because the suspension of disbelief also applies to still images. I want the viewer to be able to relax and just enjoy what I put in front of them, and scenes that look flat seem odd and out of place because that is not how we see the world around us.

Edit: Wanted to add that no one crops their images when they view them at 100% pixels and then prints those crops, or saves them to any device as wallpaper. Everyone who is looking for an image to print, or for wallpaper, is looking at photos edge to edge. So absolute image sharpness is a false metric and has nothing to do with image quality. But per pixel sharpness is an easy metric, there are formulas for diffraction but none for creativity, so a lot of photographers resort to focus stacking. Stacking comes with so many limitations that I would argue that it can keep a photographer from developing their creative side.
Thank you for that detailed response! As a newcomer to macro photography myself, your insight is very much appreciated!
 

Dalantech

Gatekeeper to the Small World
Feb 12, 2015
111
89
I am almost always holding on to whatever the critter is perched on with my non camera hand, and then resting the lens on that same hand so that subject and camera are on the same "platform". I focus by sliding the lens on my hand, and can rotate the subject's perch to change the angle of it and/or get it looking into the camera. I will then pick a spot where I want the area of acceptable focus to start, like this Swallowtail Butterfly's proboscis, and then twist my wrist (the one holding the camera) to lay the area of acceptable focus over the critter's leading eye trying to get as much of its face in focus.

Thank you for that detailed response! As a newcomer to macro photography myself, your insight is very much appreciated!
Thanks for taking the time to tell me!

I have tutorials at Deviant art and I blog about macro if you are interested.