Hyperfocal confusion

[pundit]

I do not have my m8 yet so the reference to the M8 manual will be hearsay from Leica Tech Support in NJ.

Luminous Landscape has a review which states that the Hf should be set to one larger fstop due to calculation using Circles of Confusion.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Leica-M8-Perspective.shtml

Leica Tech Support, NJ, states the manual for the M8 declares that no change in setting up Hf is necessary due to the crop factor not affecting DoF.

This is a conflict which I would appreciate any technically minded M8 owners to clarify for me. I will likely get my M8 next week and would like to hit the streets running so to speak.

 

[jlw]

You can download the M8 instruction manual as a PDF file from this link:

Click here for Leica M8 manual.

This may not resolve the disagreement, but at least you'll know what the manual says firsthand rather than by hearsay!

 

[pundit]

Thank you for the manual link!

First hand:

In comparison, with its 18x27mm, the
sensor in the LEICA M8 is somewhat smaller though –
by a factor of 0.75. Therefore, when used on the
LEICA M8, these lenses have angles of view corresponding
to lenses with focal lengths that are longer
by a factor of 1.33 (1.33 = reciprocal of 0.75). This
has the respective effects on their perspective, but
not on their depth of field, which, with the LEICA M8,
can also be read directly off the lens (see the lens
instructions for more details).

The disagreement still persists. Anyone with the answer as to which is correct?​

 

[Finder]

Well, why don't you try each recommendation and see which works for you. After all, it is the results that are important and DOF happens to be SUBJECTIVE.

 

[jobo]

LL has got the theory right, for sure. They also have a test, which matches my (meager) experience:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/Digital Focusing.shtml


2c, /Johannes

 

[pundit]

Thanks

Jobo your reference was a home run for me. Hope others will follow the url and gain some insight.

 

[__--]

Digital or analogue doesn't really matter: the depth of field scales were established in the 1930s, when prints were a lot smaller in that 8x10 was fairly large. Today, when making large prints, if you want to focus on the hyperfoical distance using DOF scales, you'd better use the markings of one or two stops larger than the scales indicate.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

[Finder]

Digital or analogue doesn't really matter: the depth of field scales were established in the 1930s, when prints were a lot smaller in that 8x10 was fairly large. Today, when making large prints, if you want to focus on the hyperfoical distance using DOF scales, you'd better use the markings of one or two stops larger than the scales indicate.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

Print size is not the issue as it is always in relation to viewing distance. The problem is simply due to the angular resolution of the eye which has not changed since the 30s. The science is still good, it is simply most folks don't understand it.