getting all over sharpness?

Wide aperture short tele, tripod, diffused light, multi-shot stack as required to get the whole plate (or whatever you require) in focus. Combine in software.

Give it a try. Nothing like experience to learn.

For information on depth of field try :-

http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html


regards
Bernard

Believe me I have.

If you change focal length and move in closer then the image will have changed so you're not comparing like with like plus I've suggested a way to the OP that will make his image more acceptable (albeit not all over sharp in focus) using exactly the same set up that he used in the image he posted and using even the same aperture!

What will not change the depth of field is just changing lenses, keeping the cameras where it is, then cropping the resulting image down to the original view.

I see Frogherder has Googled depth of field and found this table which is pretty useful for making comparisons:
http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html

In reality depth of field doesn't exist for anything other than a pinhole camera. When lenses get involved they all have a focal point somewhere and the depth of field is just what looks acceptably sharp. What would look sharp in an enprint size photo may look dreadful in a 20x16, but even then it depends on the viewing distance. Likewise consider a web image greatly enlarged, or a fuzzy image reduced for the web - it may well look fine then.

Hope the OP doesn't mind me using his image as an example (tell me if you do and I'll remove it):




Agreed it still isn't all over sharp (it could be sharpened more) but that may well be acceptable for some uses. I've seen worse on eBay where dealers have been selling expensive photographic equipment!

Ideally it's a matter of getting the part of the photo sharp that matters the most, like getting the eye of an eagle sharp rather than its wing tip. In this picture the back of the image is sharp but the front isn't and that is where the eye looks first in this instance. Most casual viewers though probably wouldn't even notice.

John

As JAK has so elequently stated, changing the lens from the same view point does increase the depth of field, but cropping reduces it again.

Focusing on the hyperfocal distance (see same website) will maximise the use of the depth, but may not still render the front or back items acceptable until a small enough aperture is used.


regards
Bernard

Wrong. When you crop and enlarge more to get the same image size, you also reduce the "apparent" sharpness of the image, i.e. the parts that are "relatively" sharp will appear less sharp due to the increased size of the circle of confusion.

There is no free lunch anywhere in photography. The only way to really increase depth of field (out of digital "wizardry") is with a smaller opening of the lens.

So what do you suggest the OP does to enhance his image.. that is what this thread is supposed to be about!

I do not disagree with what you have said but it isn't that cut and dried. The cropped, wider lens may be far superior (sharper) to the longer lens then the reverse would be true. But what you say is correct if everything else is equal - that's why we would like a full frame sensor from Pentax.

John

A "full frame" (which is a misnomer, since APS-C is a full frame also) would give LESS depth of field with all parameters being EQUIVALENT.

I already said that the only solution (in camera) is to use a smaller aperture. Otherwise, there is focus stacking.

I think we all know what we mean when we refer to a full frame camera/sensor by now! For many years the Olympus half frame cameras have been around - they were advertised as such - they literally were a half 35mm frame (albeit the same size as a full 35mm cine frame.) We understand what that means though but by the same logic you used for designating APS-C full frame I guess you'd call those Olympus half frame cameras full frame too. Probably technically right but no one else would understand and confuse everyone no end!

Re DOF, a lens swapped between different cameras (e.g. a 50mm set at a certain f stop and distance from a subject) would have exactly the same depth of field each time, be that on an APS-C, full frame, Pentax Q camera etc. What would differ on each would be the field of view.

Your suggestion to use a smaller aperture was the one initially given to the OP.

John

Maybe worth a read for general information?

link

Best regards

Well found. Let's hope the OP picks up on it and has a read.

Of note is that the author's shots are effective despite not being all over sharp!

Probably worth linking to the home page of that author too as there are other articles that may prove useful for someone involved in that line of business.

link

John

[quote:3496ace15f="JAK" Re DOF, a lens swapped between different cameras (e.g. a 50mm set at a certain f stop and distance from a subject) would have exactly the same depth of field each time, be that on an APS-C, full frame, Pentax Q camera etc. What would differ on each would be the field of view. [/quote]I know the DOF with a given lens is always the same, that is why I said "equivalent". To have the field of view of a 30 mm lens on APS-C with a MF camera, you need about 70 mm. Then, the DOF on a MF camera will be smaller than the APS-C camera for a same size subject.