Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Fuji X Series > Fuji X-100 Series

Fuji X-100 Series This forum is for fans of the rangefinder retrostyled Fuji X Series of digital cameras.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

The dreaded DOF scale international issue.
Old 06-29-2011   #1
M4streetshooter
Tourist Thru Life
 
M4streetshooter is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Philadelphia, Pa 19111
Age: 70
Posts: 604
The dreaded DOF scale international issue.

Ok, first off ... We can safely assume that this forum has many members that understand RF cameras. They also understand about DOF scales and how to use them. Many also use the X100.

So, if you use a DOF calculator, set to 23mm (22-24 will work), you will find that the scale in the camera is off.
It's off very bad on the close end of hyperfocal distance.

It appears that Fuji used a 35mm to design the scale.
Of course we all know that's just wrong.

Does this bother anyone or should I just drink another shot of single malt.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #2
TXForester
Registered User
 
TXForester's Avatar
 
TXForester is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alba, Texas
Posts: 1,247
Are you taking into account that it has a crop factor of about 1.5X?

I have E-510 (4/3s) with a 2X crop factor. The dof is about double what it is on a 135mm camera using the same focal length and aperture.

Go here. http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html Compare the 23mm lens with 35mm and see if the scale is closer with the crop factor added.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #3
M4streetshooter
Tourist Thru Life
 
M4streetshooter is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Philadelphia, Pa 19111
Age: 70
Posts: 604
It's not about the crop factor. Any calculator will instruct you to use the actual focal length on the camera. Every other camera works right, the X100 scale is off.
Use the X1 as the sensor, put 23mm as the lens... compare to the scale in the camera...

I'm a streetshooter, this is an issue for me.
Set the focus distance anywhere you like, compare to the calculator and you'll see what's wrong.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #4
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 5,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by M4streetshooter View Post
It's not about the crop factor. Any calculator will instruct you to use the actual focal length on the camera. Every other camera works right, the X100 scale is off.
Use the X1 as the sensor, put 23mm as the lens... compare to the scale in the camera...
In the end it's just that the camera maker took a decision what they consider the acceptable circle of confusion, and that's why the camera shows what it shows. I don't have an X100 here; what does the camera show, say, as hyperfocal distance for f/8?

DOF Master says it's 3.30 m, based on a Circle of Confusion of 0.02mm. The X100 has a pixel pitch of about 5.5 Ám, meaning that this CoC would already covers four pixels wide and four pixels high. So it gets rather mushy. If you set the distance to those 3.30 m, what is one pixel at 3.30 m gets mushed into four pixels at infinity. If you set your standards of acceptable sharpness higher so that unsharpness within depth of field should, for example, never be larger than one sensor pixel, you have to calculate instead with a less generous CoC of 0.0055mm (the pixel pitch), which gets you a much stricter hyperfocal distance of 12.05 m at f/8.

Now how is this an international issue?
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #5
M4streetshooter
Tourist Thru Life
 
M4streetshooter is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Philadelphia, Pa 19111
Age: 70
Posts: 604
X100: f/16 6 feet to infinity
DOF program: 2.9 feet to infinity

X100: f/8 12 or 13 feet to infinity
DOF program: 5.8 feet to infinity

X100: f/4 25 feet to infinity
DOF program: 11.8 feet to infinity

I do understand a certain margin of error for being conservative.
Look above...that's a heck of a margin!

I have tested this, had prints made... Fuji got it wrong.

Last edited by M4streetshooter : 06-29-2011 at 08:39.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #6
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 5,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by M4streetshooter View Post
I do understand a certain margin of error for being conservative.
Look above...that's a heck of a margin!

I have tested this, had prints made... Fuji got it wrong.
I don't think they "got it wrong", they're just catering to pixel peepers' ideas of sharpness. Looks like they calculated with a circle of confusion around 0.01 Ám.

Now you can either order bigger prints and enjoy that they still look sharp, or you can get used to that in order to get prints that are acceptably sharp to you, you have twice as much margin as the camera suggests.

Still unclear how that's an "international" issue though.
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #7
MartinP
Registered User
 
MartinP is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2,031
Clearly, the difference between the figures calculated by Fuji and the figures calculated by a program on the internet is so large that - if standing at a frontier and pointing the camera in a particular direction - the wrong country can be in focus!!! Hence, it is an international issue . . errmmmm, I could be wrong (I usually am).
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #8
M4streetshooter
Tourist Thru Life
 
M4streetshooter is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Philadelphia, Pa 19111
Age: 70
Posts: 604
It's not just international, it's multicultural.

I used the same dof settings on the Nex5 and an X1.
So why would Fuji assume it's ok to make a scale that's off.
At f16, I have 16 x 20 prints that are great from around 3' to infinity.
Maybe I just don't see the Forrest for the Trees but this camera is no different than any other when it comes to dof.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #9
M4streetshooter
Tourist Thru Life
 
M4streetshooter is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Philadelphia, Pa 19111
Age: 70
Posts: 604
Thanks Martin... I'm just a Philly streetshooter... Anything west of Broad Street is international...
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #10
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 5,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double Negative View Post
If Sarah Palin focuses on her porch, only Russia will be sharp?
I think I'll have that single malt now.
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #11
KenR
Registered User
 
KenR is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 706
As I always use a more stringent circle of confusion than the manufacturer's recommended CofC, I applaud Fuji decision. Maybe they figure that the lens is so good that everyone will want to make 20x24 inch prints and will want the tighter DOF limits.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #12
M4streetshooter
Tourist Thru Life
 
M4streetshooter is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Philadelphia, Pa 19111
Age: 70
Posts: 604
Look at it this way.... You figure you need from around 6' to infinity for a shoot...
The camera says use f16.....
The light is slipping....
You really need f8 to get your dof...
That's 2 stops here in Philly...
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #13
MartinP
Registered User
 
MartinP is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2,031
More seriously, the whole thing depends on what you do with the recorded-image. In the old old old days the calculation would have assumed contact prints from a sheet or plate, while acceptable enlargement has varied depending on the quality of film and the enlarging tools available. Now with digital you can zoom in hugely on your monitor, or crop a small piece of the scene with ease - it is not unreasonable for the acceptable circle-of-confusion to be reduced in such circumstances, as so often throughout photographic history.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #14
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 5,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by M4streetshooter View Post
Look at it this way.... You figure you need from around 6' to infinity for a shoot...
The camera says use f16.....
The light is slipping....
You really need f8 to get your dof...
...and you figure your camera's standards are higher than yours because you don't do pixel peeping...
...so when the camera suggests f16 you know that you'll still be happy at f8...

Everybody is happy. Problem solved! Cheers!
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #15
M4streetshooter
Tourist Thru Life
 
M4streetshooter is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Philadelphia, Pa 19111
Age: 70
Posts: 604
A shot of Scotch and I'll do the X1 and Nex the same way.....
That way all 3 camera can be wrong about right at the same time.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #16
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 5,806
That's because Scotch leads to greater circles of confusion.
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #17
randolph45
Registered User
 
randolph45's Avatar
 
randolph45 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Sacramento Calif
Posts: 1,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double Negative View Post
If Sarah Palin focuses on her porch, only Russia will be sharp?
lol yes it's true
__________________
I finally realized why my photographs are so bad! It's not the equipment
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #18
M4streetshooter
Tourist Thru Life
 
M4streetshooter is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Philadelphia, Pa 19111
Age: 70
Posts: 604
Yessir! Scotch will do that.
I just find it hard to believe the Fuji engineers planned this great mistake proof feature but couldn't get auto iso in the iso menu.....
Nah.... Sorry, ain't buying it...
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #19
Gid
Registered User
 
Gid's Avatar
 
Gid is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Suffolk, UK
Posts: 1,749
If you put 35mm and X100 in to DOF Master you get what the X100 shows. Fuji just used the wrong numbers. In practice, what this means is, that if you work to the Fuji DOF scale you will be well within the zone of acceptable focus. If you want to be OCD (even slightly) about it then just note down the hyperfocal distance for your most commonly used f stops and set the focus to that distance in manual focus and you are sorted.
__________________
My Gallery

My Top Ten

Gid
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #20
M4streetshooter
Tourist Thru Life
 
M4streetshooter is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Philadelphia, Pa 19111
Age: 70
Posts: 604
Thanks Gid..... I just see it as an unacceptable mistake.
I may be the only one upset about this and that probably means more that the issue at hand.
If Leica did this....hmmmmm worlds would collide.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #21
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
 
RayPA's Avatar
 
RayPA is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The GOLDEN State
Posts: 4,573
When I setup my X100 for this type of shooting I used 35 mm as the FL in my DoF app. It never occurred to me to use 23 mm.




/
__________________
Ray, SF Bay Area
My Blurb Books.
RFF Gallery
I'm ~quinine~ on Flickr
blogged
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #22
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
 
JoeV's Avatar
 
JoeV is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Posts: 1,706
Repeat after me: "'Depth of Field' scales always assume the image will be printed and viewed with the print held at some specific distance from the viewer. It's not just about what happens within the camera, but is looking at total system resolution in the final print, which takes into account, not only the lens focal length and taking aperture but, the format size and enlargement factor to that final print."

Make sure you stand fully upright, maintain good posture, and intone the above phrase at full volume ten times, ensuring proper breathing is maintained.

It's either that, or we'll have to throw down the mega DOF thread again.

~Joe

PS: DOF scales ALWAYS assume the image will be enlarged and viewed as a print. ALWAYS. Ergo, enlargement factors and format size do matter. Just in case I wasn't bluntly obvious enough already.
__________________
"If your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light"

Inventor of the Light Pipe Array
My Blog
My latest book
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #23
Gid
Registered User
 
Gid's Avatar
 
Gid is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Suffolk, UK
Posts: 1,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayPA View Post
When I setup my X100 for this type of shooting I used 35 mm as the FL in my DoF app. It never occurred to me to use 23 mm.

/
Me too until I read the instructions on DOF Master, but at least its wrong in the right direction.
__________________
My Gallery

My Top Ten

Gid
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #24
M4streetshooter
Tourist Thru Life
 
M4streetshooter is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Philadelphia, Pa 19111
Age: 70
Posts: 604
We hope it's in the right direction ONLY.
There's a discussion elsewhere where on MF the camera fails to focus at infinity.
If the scale is off equally in each direction, then that could explain infinity being off also.

I'm 4 scotches down and humbugged with this stuff...
Time to load the M4's again....
The Lux and Cron scales are right.... Aren't they...?
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #25
Steveh
Registered User
 
Steveh is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 407
I noticed this for the first time this morning - glad I'm not going crazy. Googling around a bit it's flagged as an issue in the DPreview list of bugs in their review, a lot of which were fixed in the firmware update, but apparently this one wasn't. So either they forgot to do it, they can't do it, or it's intentional. It does seem clear that it's very conservative though, so there's more headroom there than the camera suggests.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #26
M4streetshooter
Tourist Thru Life
 
M4streetshooter is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Philadelphia, Pa 19111
Age: 70
Posts: 604
Thanks Steve,
Your not crazy, your just observant. I'm actually surprised that there isn't an uprising about this. It's perplexing as to what people will settle with.
I love the camera. I just know that I have twice the DOF in front than what the camera tells me I have...
Good luck..... Don
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #27
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 5,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by M4streetshooter View Post
I'm actually surprised that there isn't an uprising about this.
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #28
Steveh
Registered User
 
Steveh is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 407
I supect 99% of users never take the camera off AF - I hadn't really until today, I only picked up on it because I was playing around with scale focussing this morning and noticed it showed a lot less DoF at any given aperture and distance than the 28mm on my M8, which clearly can't be right.

Perhaps people should all email Fuji to make sure they pick up on it in the next firmware update - it must be a simple fix (you'd think).



Quote:
Originally Posted by M4streetshooter View Post
Thanks Steve,
Your not crazy, your just observant. I'm actually surprised that there isn't an uprising about this. It's perplexing as to what people will settle with.
I love the camera. I just know that I have twice the DOF in front than what the camera tells me I have...
Good luck..... Don
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #29
user237428934
User deletion pending
 
user237428934 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by M4streetshooter View Post
X100: f/4 25 feet to infinity
DOF program: 11.8 feet to infinity
Maybe you got it wrong?

When I calculate 11.8 feet to infinity with a DOF program then it shows me that you have to dial in a distance of 25 feet to get this.
Maybe the X100 just shows the necessary distance of 25 feet.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #30
M4streetshooter
Tourist Thru Life
 
M4streetshooter is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Philadelphia, Pa 19111
Age: 70
Posts: 604
Tom, try setting the camera to HD at any fstop.
Compare with a DOF program and you'll see the light.
After many tries, I talked with an guy in the engineering dept.
He admitted the camera was wrong and likely to be corrected at some point.
don
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #31
peripatetic
Registered User
 
peripatetic is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London, England
Posts: 250
Oh for heaven's sake.

Most digital shooters with sharp lenses believe the DOF scales as designed for film are hopelessly out of date. Fuji has just been more conservative to satisfy people with crazy pixel-peeping standards or who want larger prints than A4.

Snap out of it. DOF scales are arbitrary and depend entirely on your chosen CoC.

If Fuji had chosen a more relaxed scale as you suggest then there would have been people castigating them in the other direction because "I've done a print and the DOF scales are wrong. Call that sharp?" etc, ad nauseum.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #32
M4streetshooter
Tourist Thru Life
 
M4streetshooter is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Philadelphia, Pa 19111
Age: 70
Posts: 604
To each his own.....
Enjoy your day....
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #33
TXForester
Registered User
 
TXForester's Avatar
 
TXForester is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alba, Texas
Posts: 1,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double Negative View Post
If Sarah Palin focuses on her porch, only Russia will be sharp?
Somebody should tell Sarah she needs to take the lens cap off.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #34
M4streetshooter
Tourist Thru Life
 
M4streetshooter is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Philadelphia, Pa 19111
Age: 70
Posts: 604
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXForester View Post
Somebody should tell Sarah she needs to take the lens cap off.
She's shooting pinhole.....
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #35
Eric T
Registered User
 
Eric T is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 755
I always thought that the smaller the sensor, the greater the DOF for a given focal length.
Ithink Fuji has this right.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #36
Jamie123
Registered User
 
Jamie123 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric T View Post
I always thought that the smaller the sensor, the greater the DOF for a given focal length.
Ithink Fuji has this right.
No, the DoF stays the same for a given focal length no matter what size the sensor is. But the smaller the sensor, the shorter the focal length (with less DoF) you need to use in order to achieve the same FoV.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #37
M4streetshooter
Tourist Thru Life
 
M4streetshooter is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Philadelphia, Pa 19111
Age: 70
Posts: 604
I did manage to talk with an engineer at Fuji.
He admitted there was a mistake made as they used a 35mm to compute the scale.
He was hoping for a fix in a future update.

For me, this is a key feature of the camera.
I get a lot of ribbing over this issue but right is right and wrong is just plum wrong.
I've been doing hyperfocal and zone focus long enough to know when something's not working.

My 16 x 20 prints show that the lens performs better than the scale suggests.
Don
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #38
fixed point
 
fixed point's Avatar
 
fixed point is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: ⓜⓐⓢⓢ
Posts: 65
I prefer the "wrong" scale that they are using now. Maybe they should have a setting in the menu for the CoC used to calculate the DoF scale.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #39
peripatetic
Registered User
 
peripatetic is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London, England
Posts: 250
Great idea!

I prefer the conservative scale. Just right for an A3 print viewed from 12" according to DOFMaster. :-)
__________________
My gallery
My X100 Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011   #40
M4streetshooter
Tourist Thru Life
 
M4streetshooter is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Philadelphia, Pa 19111
Age: 70
Posts: 604
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixed point View Post
I prefer the "wrong" scale that they are using now. Maybe they should have a setting in the menu for the CoC used to calculate the DoF scale.
They would put it on the same menu as the Auto ISO.....
So it would be useless anyway.....

It's my only issue with the X100 as everything else it great. I'll probably use this for the rest of my life...well a long time at any rate...
don
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:59.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.