Depth of Field Calculators/Aids

[Alan Gibson]

Bill's maths concludes 0.057mm, and I can't argue with it. But I would add a note of caution: it depends what you mean by 'super sharp prints'. I have done experiments, and found that people can easily rank the sharpness in 10x8 prints made from negatives that were slightly out of focus, but stll well within the standard CofC limits. Not with loupes, but looking at 10x8 prints from a distance of a couple of metres.

One conclusion that I have come to is that 'acceptable CofC' depends on the quality of the lens (and other components in the chain). If you have a very good lens (film, etc), you will only tolerate a very small CofC, possibly one-tenth the size of the accepted numbers. With a lower-quality lens etc, you can can accept a relaxed CofC, essentially because the sharpest point on the print isn't really very sharp.

[Ellis Vener]

Larry, Yep, that is a piece of vaporware sitting on my Arca's back rail section. Norman McGrath and maybe Jack Dykinga have Brainboxes as well. I thought the new version of the Arca brainbox had been released already.

For what is is forth I am planning on purchasing one of the Rodenstock calculators as well for use with DLC and my V-pan. A cool tool for traveling fools!

[Larry Huppert]

Ellis: I don't doubt you have an Arca-Swiss Brainbox. Maybe you were among the lucky ones. The dealer I spoke with said they had over 50 people wanting them, and Arca-Swiss never delivered on the item. I only report what I was told.

Dealers can't get them (as told to me by Arca-Swiss), and the new version isn't available (as told to me by Arca-Swiss). I hope you are right about the new version being available soon. Sometimes outside sources hear information faster than factory representatives.