ben brugman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>

> hyperfocal calculation would be an objective/consisten comparison,

> but it's not very usefull, because it's difficult to interpret hyperfocal

> length. Comparing two hyperfocal length's does not realy illustrate the

> difference in DOF although it's consistent and objective.
Making a depth of field table based on hyperfocal distance is a piece

of cake. Divide hyperfocal distance by the sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, ...

So if the hyperfocal distance at f/2 of a certain lens is 100 feet,

then make the table 100, 50, 33, 25, 20, 16.7, 14.3, 12.5, 11.1, 10, ...

If you set the focus at 12.5 feet then everything from 11.1 feet

to 14.3 feet will be in acceptable focus. You can make another table

for f/2.8 by multiplying the hyperfocal distance by 0.707. For f/4

you can just use the f/2 table but look two steps on each side so

that at f/4 the depth of field at 12.5 feet will be from 10 to 16.7

feet.

> Go with the fraction of the format as written. (1/1720 of the diagonal

> is a high standard for DOF, most standards are less.) And compare DOFS

> with a DOF calculator. (And offcourse experiment with your camera's).

>
The trouble with a DoF calculator is that it hides the math so that

people assume that the calculations are much more arcane than they

actually are. Making your own DoF table will do much to take away

the mystery.

Peter.

--

(E-Mail Removed)