Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews

Thread started 23 Aug 2015 (Sunday) 01:50

Depth of Field Calculators

Aug 23, 2015 01:50 |  #1

How accurate are depth of field calculators for macro photography? Seems that they are really designed for "normal" lenses and shooting distances, and don't accurately reflect the depth of field when shooting at 1x or higher. Do you know of a good one to use for macro?

 LIKES 0

Aug 25, 2015 02:40 |  #2

Dalantech wrote in post #17679346
How accurate are depth of field calculators for macro photography? Seems that they are really designed for "normal" lenses and shooting distances, and don't accurately reflect the depth of field when shooting at 1x or higher. Do you know of a good one to use for macro?

There's what appears to be a good one further down on this page http://www.cambridgein​colour.com/tutorials/m​acro-lenses.htm

or you can use the calculation

DOF = 2 N c x [(m+1)/m^2]

N - f number,
c - circle of confusion, = 0.018mm for aps-c, 0.029mm for FF,
m - magnification

Brian V.

http://www.flickr.com/​photos/lordv/
http://www.lordv.smugm​ug.com/
Macro Hints and tips
Canon 600D, 40D, 5D mk2, 7D, Tamron 90mm macro, Sigma 105mm OS, Canon MPE-65,18-55 kit lens X2, canon 200mm F2.8 L, Tamron 28-70mm xrdi, Other assorted bits

 LIKES 0

Aug 25, 2015 04:09 |  #3

LordV wrote in post #17682016
There's what appears to be a good one further down on this page http://www.cambridgein​colour.com/tutorials/m​acro-lenses.htm

or you can use the calculation

DOF = 2 N c x [(m+1)/m^2]

N - f number,
c - circle of confusion, = 0.018mm for aps-c, 0.029mm for FF,
m - magnification

Brian V.

Thanks Brian -that's the kind of resource I was looking for!

 LIKES 0

Aug 27, 2015 04:17 as a reply to  @ Dalantech's post |  #4

Nit picking perhaps, but if you're stacking, check your pixel dimension.
If you have 24MP on APS-C, 0.018mm is five pixels wide, so you could gain from a tighter C of C.
Some would say use just ONE pixel wide.

Depends on the size of "print" you're going for.

And of course you need a good-enough lens, and not to be diffraction limited, and not wobble....

 LIKES 0

Aug 27, 2015 04:38 |  #5

Chris-R wrote in post #17684620
Nit picking perhaps, but if you're stacking, check your pixel dimension.
If you have 24MP on APS-C, 0.018mm is five pixels wide, so you could gain from a tighter C of C.
Some would say use just ONE pixel wide.

Depends on the size of "print" you're going for.

And of course you need a good-enough lens, and not to be diffraction limited, and not wobble....

I don't think you're nit picking -I think it's important to consider all of the aspects in a system.

 LIKES 0

1,481 views & 0 likes for this thread
Depth of Field Calculators
AAA
 x 1600 y 1600

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!