Product Photography with M8

J

jrichie

Member
Local time
2:11 PM
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Messages
27
I am looking to take my own pictures of some products I have developed with my M8, and was thinking of getting a 75mm Summarit lens to help me along.

Do you guys think this would be a good lens choice for this kind of photography?

I intend to get a shooting tent also - any tips there.

Cheers!!!:)
 
Dont agree
Not enough depth of field with the 90 on an M8
Id even try a 50. I love the effect of leica lenses wide open, its one of there strong points, but if you are wanting to show all the details of a commercial product then detail and depth of field become important.

Ultimately the lens size depends on the size of the product and what you want to do with the shots. If its just for on line then some of the compact P & S's focus very close indeed and very little fuss.

Richard
 
Hmmm... If you can be artistic and don't have to show a great depth of field the you could probably use the LEICA. Lens choice would depend on the working distance and perspective you want to show. I have to admit for most product photography a lens with a tilt facility such as the Canon 90mm TS (which is excellent) or 45mm TS would be more suited.

Bob.
 
J Richie
Maybe you could give us some idea of the product size and what you intend to do with the images.
Its a bit difficult to give advice for all eventualities.
I tend to agree with other posters that a range finder would not be my first choice. No doubt the view camera option takes some beating, but it may well be overkill for your intended purpose, and it might take a bit of time to get the advatage out of it in terms of perspective control if you are unfamiliar with 5x4.

Richard
 
Phew . . . I'm relieved to see that I'm not the only (ancient and unmodernised) person who immediately thought "5x4 sheet" when reading the OP.
;)

More seriously, some sort of through-the-lens view is pretty much essential for product-photography and you could gain some benefit from the LCD screen on the M8. It certainly wouldn't be my first choice though. Try as long a lens as you can manage, in order to give a more natural perspective maybe ?

A sunny day, a low table, a few chairs, some white sheets and you don't need a studio at all - at least not for just a few shots. With me being in Holland, this will work on too few days per year to be practical for commercial purposes, although with bright-overcast weather you could even lose the sheets.
 
Richard Marks said:
Dont agree
Not enough depth of field with the 90 on an M8
Click to expand...

Dear Richard,

D-o-f on the sensor depends on image size, not focal length, so it ain't gonna matter whether you use 50-75-90: you'll just go on getting closer (= smaller d-o-f) with the shorter focal length.

I do actually shoot product shots with the M8, and my choices would be first, 65/3.5 Elmar on a Viso III with a masked finder (which is what I use); second, 90/4 makro; third, 75/2. I own the 75 and had the 90 for a few months, so again, I've tried it.

The fourth choice, a DR 50 Summicron, is feasible ONLY for close-ups on an M8 (the cam fouls the interior at infinity) and after that all choices are fairly poor.

Cheers,

R.
 
Thanks for the ideas!

I am taking pictures of laptop bags [not camera bags...... yet], and was wanting to be able to take some pictures using both deep d.o.f and shallow......

They will be for web and print.

Also, for me hiring cameras I am unsure about is not going to work, and would much prefer to stick with what I have and know, hence using the M8 - I realise it is not the perfect camera for this work, but also will give good results still.

reading what you guys think I am still unsure, but probably a 90mm may do it!
 
I would not recommend a rangefinder for this kind of photography.For that kind of money I would suggest A higher end dslr.I love shooting with my leica m6.But there are other tools more suited to the task you are doing.A range finder isnt it.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Richard,

D-o-f on the sensor depends on image size, not focal length, so it ain't gonna matter whether you use 50-75-90: you'll just go on getting closer (= smaller d-o-f) with the shorter focal length.

I do actually shoot product shots with the M8, and my choices would be first, 65/3.5 Elmar on a Viso III with a masked finder (which is what I use); second, 90/4 makro; third, 75/2. I own the 75 and had the 90 for a few months, so again, I've tried it.

The fourth choice, a DR 50 Summicron, is feasible ONLY for close-ups on an M8 (the cam fouls the interior at infinity) and after that all choices are fairly poor.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Roger longer focal length lenses have less depth of field. Agreed, the image size on the sensor is influenced by focal length and the closest focusing distance of a given lens. However if one fills equal proportions of the frame with an image, at different focal lengths, the shorter lens has more depth of field.

Of course one can shoot product shots with the M8 and if we are talking camera bags pretty much anything should be OK

Richard
 
haha...if you are going to be shooting laptop bags don't forget your IR cut filter unless you want a lot of purple! For how much a new lens and filter would cost you could get a canon digital and a multipurpose lens that would be so much better for this kind of thing.
 
Richard Marks said:
Roger longer focal length lenses have less depth of field. Agreed, the image size on the sensor is influenced by focal length and the closest focusing distance of a given lens. However if one fills equal proportions of the frame with an image, at different focal lengths, the shorter lens has more depth of field.

Of course one can shoot product shots with the M8 and if we are talking camera bags pretty much anything should be OK

Richard
Click to expand...

Dear Richard,

I am reasonably confident that you are wrong, and that depth of field depends on image size.

For the same image size (i.e. magnification, e.g. a 20mm-long image of a 50cm-long object, whether it is on an M8, 35mm or anything else), the d-o-f will be the same, regardless of f.l.

The reason smaller formats give more d-o-f is that the image is smaller. The reason shorter focal lengths give more apparent depth of field is that they are almost never used to give the same size image.

I may of course be wrong in these assertions but I would be grateful if you could point me to a reputable source that avers (or better still, proves) the contrary.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Richard,

I am reasonably confident that you are wrong, and that depth of field depends on image size.

For the same image size (i.e. magnification, e.g. a 20mm-long image of a 50cm-long object, whether it is on an M8, 35mm or anything else), the d-o-f will be the same, regardless of f.l.

The reason smaller formats give more d-o-f is that the image is smaller. The reason shorter focal lengths give more apparent depth of field is that they are almost never used to give the same size image.

I may of course be wrong in these assertions but I would be grateful if you could point me to a reputable source that avers (or better still, proves) the contrary.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
Basic Photography (Michael Langford) 1998 edition;
Page 42 " the longre the focal length of your lens, the less depth of field it gives, even with the same apperture and subject distance (figures 3.16 and 5.2). Mr Langford goes on to prove this with angles of view being narrower at longer focal lengths and greater circles of confusion (hence less in focus).
But surely just look on your lenses! Look at the depth of field scales for different focal lengths.
Failing this, get your lenses out and shoot a row of tin men with different focal lengths and see for yourself.
RM
 
Unless you get a kick out of using an inappropriate camera for the purpose (rangefinder), virtually any prosumer DSLR would serve you better...mid-priced examples include Nikon D300 and Pentax K20D . The worst of their kit zooms are more than adequate for most catalog illustrations, all websites, and press releases, but you can add primes or professional series lenses , outperform M8 in every technical respect (fwiw nearly twice the detail resolution @ 14.6mp), and still save money.
 
Last edited:
Richard Marks said:
Basic Photography (Michael Langford) 1998 edition;
Page 42 " the longre the focal length of your lens, the less depth of field it gives, even with the same apperture and subject distance (figures 3.16 and 5.2). Mr Langford goes on to prove this with angles of view being narrower at longer focal lengths and greater circles of confusion (hence less in focus).
But surely just look on your lenses! Look at the depth of field scales for different focal lengths.
Failing this, get your lenses out and shoot a row of tin men with different focal lengths and see for yourself.
RM
Click to expand...

Dear Richard,

Yes: I have highlighted the flaw in your argument above.

I am talking about a constant magnification, which was my original point. Constant distance with shorter focal lengths = a smaller image on the film. The d-o-f scales are evidence of this, as they are for constant distances, not constant magnifications.

'Practical' vs. 'theoretical' collide when you are shooting product shots, because you ARE looking at a constant magnification.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Richard,

Yes: I have highlighted the flaw in your argument above.

I am talking about a constant magnification, which was my original point. Constant distance with shorter focal lengths = a smaller image on the film. The d-o-f scales are evidence of this, as they are for constant distances, not constant magnifications.

'Practical' vs. 'theoretical' collide when you are shooting product shots, because you ARE looking at a constant magnification.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
Many thanks Roger
In a scientific argument where the value of one factor depends upon the magnitude of another, then i think it is fair to say that depth of filed decreases with increasing focal length of lens assuming other factors remain constant, and this is the crux. However you are altering the argument by moving the lens such that depth of field remains the same. Like all things I suppose one has to define the comparison! A land rover is faster than a ferrari in a ploughed field!

I think we could safely say that the reduced depth of field that results from increasing focal length can be offset by increasing lens to subject distance.

Best wishes


Richard
 
Richard Marks said:
Many thanks Roger
In a scientific argument where the value of one factor depends upon the magnitude of another, then i think it is fair to say that depth of filed decreases with increasing focal length of lens assuming other factors remain constant, and this is the crux. However you are altering the argument by moving the lens such that depth of field remains the same.
Click to expand...
Dear Richard,

Well, yes, I did say in the original post that this was for a constant image size on the film, which is almost certainly what you'd be looking at with a product shot.

Let's assume that the bag is 12x24 inches/30x60cm. In a product shot you are likely to want it to fill (let us say) half the frame, regardless of which lens you use.

So I'd dispute that I was altering the argument. I was talking about the actual situation, viz., a product shot, not (for example) a landscape from a constant viewpoint.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Can't we just use the practical approach, as the mathematics involved are quite elaborate ( and yes, Roger, for practical purposes you are right that it depends on magnification throughout the whole image taking sequence from subject to print, but in the full workthrough focal length is also a factor). If we were comparing film to film, DOF on the M8 would be about one stop wider than on film. But!.. A sensor defines the focus gradient much more exactly, so in actual use DOF on the M8 is, subjectively (which is all DOF is) the same as on film.
I've said it before, DOF is in the eye of the beholder..:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom