DoF and hyperfocal distance calculators and charts

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Dec 24, 2008.

  1. There will be some situations out in the middle of nowhere when I may
    need to calculate the hyperfocal distance. But despite all the smarts
    built into my Nikon D700, and with the lenses that I have, there does
    not appear to be any way of calculating the hyperfocal distance using
    the D700. That's a real pity.

    I'd have thought it would be elementary to set the required circle of
    confusion and save this in the camera, and then when required
    activate a "hyperfocal lock" function (let's call it "HF-L") and then
    point the camera at the closest feature that you want in focus and
    the camera then locks focus to the hyperfocal distance. But the D700
    doesn't do this. So…

    I've looked at software. I currently use a BlackBerry Curve device
    which I nearly always have with me so I could use that using suitable
    DoF software. Can you advice which is the best software to use?
    Preferably free!

    But even so, sometimes I might not have the BlackBerry device with
    me. So I'm thinking of some kind of small mechanical calculator kinda
    like a slide-rule or disc which I can attach to my camera or lenses.
    I've seen this but it's limited in the number of focal lengths that
    it can use so some guesswork may be required for zooms:

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

    What I think may be better (but bowing to your superior experience
    and knowledge!) is using some charts. Again, at the same site I came
    across this:

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

    I think that I can print one or two of these charts to cover my
    lenses that I can then print very small and then laminate. I'd really
    like to attach these to my camera strap. What do you think of this
    idea? Or do you think that I should be approaching this differently?

    Thanks for reading this far. Hope to get some valuable feedback from
    everyone but with the holidays I know that some of you may be a bit
    distracted over the next few days.

    Happy holidays!
    --
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Website : www.metalvortex.com
    Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/

    Brain! Brain! What is brain?!
     
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Dec 24, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Kulvinder Singh Matharu" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > There will be some situations out in the middle of nowhere when I may
    > need to calculate the hyperfocal distance. But despite all the smarts
    > built into my Nikon D700, and with the lenses that I have, there does
    > not appear to be any way of calculating the hyperfocal distance using
    > the D700. That's a real pity.
    >
    > I'd have thought it would be elementary to set the required circle of
    > confusion and save this in the camera, and then when required
    > activate a "hyperfocal lock" function (let's call it "HF-L") and then
    > point the camera at the closest feature that you want in focus and
    > the camera then locks focus to the hyperfocal distance. But the D700
    > doesn't do this. So.
    >
    > I've looked at software. I currently use a BlackBerry Curve device
    > which I nearly always have with me so I could use that using suitable
    > DoF software. Can you advice which is the best software to use?
    > Preferably free!
    >
    > But even so, sometimes I might not have the BlackBerry device with
    > me. So I'm thinking of some kind of small mechanical calculator kinda
    > like a slide-rule or disc which I can attach to my camera or lenses.
    > I've seen this but it's limited in the number of focal lengths that
    > it can use so some guesswork may be required for zooms:
    >
    > http://www.dofmaster.com/custom.html
    >
    > What I think may be better (but bowing to your superior experience
    > and knowledge!) is using some charts. Again, at the same site I came
    > across this:
    >
    > http://www.dofmaster.com/charts.html
    >
    > I think that I can print one or two of these charts to cover my
    > lenses that I can then print very small and then laminate. I'd really
    > like to attach these to my camera strap. What do you think of this
    > idea? Or do you think that I should be approaching this differently?
    >
    > Thanks for reading this far. Hope to get some valuable feedback from
    > everyone but with the holidays I know that some of you may be a bit
    > distracted over the next few days.
    >
    > Happy holidays!
    > --
    > Kulvinder Singh Matharu
    >
    > Website : www.metalvortex.com
    > Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/
    >
    > Brain! Brain! What is brain?!


    A quick but dirty way to set hyperfocal distance is to run your lens to
    infinity focus; then, after pressing your DOF preview gbutton, slowly back
    off
    the focusing ring until the horizon starts to go blurry. Bringing the
    horizon back into focus will establish the hyperfocal range of your lens for
    whatever aperture you are stopping down to.

    Just curious why you're trying to hyperfocal an autofocus camera...

    "In the old days," hyperfocusing was done to save time and eliminate the
    need for having to manually focus the lens in extreme situations -- i.e.
    very low light, fast action, shooting over crowds, etc.

    Using modern cameras, it seems to me that most situations can be covered
    with modes like aperture priority, shutter priority, or scene modes.

    Are you working with subjects which are hard to autofocus on? Or, is it
    that you are just into manual shooting?

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Dec 25, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Paul Furman Guest

    Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:

    > But the D700 doesn't do this. So…


    Trial & error with an educated guess. Live view could be your shortcut
    with the D700, zoom in & scroll around while focusing & stopping down.
    Hmm, a quick check shows I must have something set funny because I can't
    scroll around once zoomed in live view... I'm sure that can be changed
    though.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Dec 25, 2008
    #3
  4. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    frank Guest

    On Dec 24, 6:30 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <>
    wrote:
    > "Kulvinder Singh Matharu" <> wrote in messagenews:...
    >
    >
    >
    > > There will be some situations out in the middle of nowhere when I may
    > > need to calculate the hyperfocal distance. But despite all the smarts
    > > built into my Nikon D700, and with the lenses that I have, there does
    > > not appear to be any way of calculating the hyperfocal distance using
    > > the D700. That's a real pity.

    >
    > > I'd have thought it would be elementary to set the required circle of
    > > confusion and save this in the camera, and then when required
    > > activate a "hyperfocal lock" function (let's call it "HF-L") and then
    > > point the camera at the closest feature that you want in focus and
    > > the camera then locks focus to the hyperfocal distance. But the D700
    > > doesn't do this. So.

    >
    > > I've looked at software. I currently use a BlackBerry Curve device
    > > which I nearly always have with me so I could use that using suitable
    > > DoF software. Can you advice which is the best software to use?
    > > Preferably free!

    >
    > > But even so, sometimes I might not have the BlackBerry device with
    > > me. So I'm thinking of some kind of small mechanical calculator kinda
    > > like a slide-rule or disc which I can attach to my camera or lenses.
    > > I've seen this but it's limited in the number of focal lengths that
    > > it can use so some guesswork may be required for zooms:

    >
    > >http://www.dofmaster.com/custom.html

    >
    > > What I think may be better (but bowing to your superior experience
    > > and knowledge!) is using some charts. Again, at the same site I came
    > > across this:

    >
    > >http://www.dofmaster.com/charts.html

    >
    > > I think that I can print one or two of these charts to cover my
    > > lenses that I can then print very small and then laminate. I'd really
    > > like to attach these to my camera strap. What do you think of this
    > > idea? Or do you think that I should be approaching this differently?

    >
    > > Thanks for reading this far. Hope to get some valuable feedback from
    > > everyone but with the holidays I know that some of you may be a bit
    > > distracted over the next few days.

    >
    > > Happy holidays!
    > > --
    > > Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    >
    > > Website :www.metalvortex.com
    > > Contact :www.metalvortex.com/contact/

    >
    > > Brain! Brain! What is brain?!

    >
    > A quick but dirty way to set hyperfocal distance is to run your lens to
    > infinity focus;  then, after pressing your DOF preview gbutton, slowly back
    > off
    >  the focusing ring until the horizon starts to go blurry.  Bringing the
    > horizon back into focus will establish the hyperfocal range of your lens for
    > whatever aperture you are stopping down to.
    >
    > Just curious why you're trying to hyperfocal an autofocus camera...
    >
    > "In the old days," hyperfocusing was done to save time and eliminate the
    > need for having to manually focus the lens in extreme situations -- i.e.
    > very low light, fast action, shooting over crowds, etc.
    >
    > Using modern cameras, it seems to me that most situations can be covered
    > with modes like aperture priority, shutter priority, or scene modes.
    >
    > Are you working with subjects which are hard to autofocus on?  Or, is it
    > that you are just into manual shooting?
    >
    > Take Care,
    > Dudley


    I agree with this. Note digital is just a box to put on the back of
    the lens. Nothing more. Ditto with a film camera. Hey, this IS a 35mm
    group.

    The hyperfocal distance cards were pretty standard and pretty much
    didn't change at all as its a function of focal length.

    Most of the time when you did this was you knew you were going to be
    from 20 to 50 feet from the lead singer or whatever and were using
    flash. Or not. Sort of like using old manual flash where you had to
    look up coverage at a given distance and f stop.

    IF you didn't have an SLR, this was a great way to shoot. Rangefinders
    were really quiet.

    If you have distance markings on your lenses, I'd almost do the old
    markings for f stop on the barrel. Mark say, infinity, 50 feet, 20
    feet if you don't have it on the focus. whatever you shoot at, then do
    the f stop with the hyperfocus and go that way. You could use AF, look
    at the barrel and see whats a more optimal f stop if needed and change
    settings accordingly. Sort of like we did it in the old days.

    Small bits of Dymo label tape would probably work well. different
    colors for say f8, f11, f16.
     
    frank, Dec 25, 2008
    #4
  5. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Paul Furman Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:

    > Using the hyperfocal distance is simply defocusing from infinity focus
    > by as much as possible.


    This procedure should work with live view. Stop down, zoom into
    something at infinity & turn the focus ring closer till it softens.


    >> Live view could be your shortcut with the D700, zoom in & scroll around
    >> while focusing & stopping down.

    >
    > This is incredibly useful with the 24mm TSE lens.
    > With a 24mm on the 5D2, the focal length squared term plus the smaller CoC
    > mean that you really have to play tilt games, and putting the magnified view
    > at the bottom of the frame means you can get to the optimal tilt quickly.
    > Here's more detail on this:
    >
    > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=30457586
    >



    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Dec 25, 2008
    #5
  6. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Colin.D Guest

    Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:
    > There will be some situations out in the middle of nowhere when I may
    > need to calculate the hyperfocal distance. But despite all the smarts
    > built into my Nikon D700, and with the lenses that I have, there does
    > not appear to be any way of calculating the hyperfocal distance using
    > the D700. That's a real pity.
    >
    > I'd have thought it would be elementary to set the required circle of
    > confusion and save this in the camera, and then when required
    > activate a "hyperfocal lock" function (let's call it "HF-L") and then
    > point the camera at the closest feature that you want in focus and
    > the camera then locks focus to the hyperfocal distance. But the D700
    > doesn't do this. So…
    >
    > I've looked at software. I currently use a BlackBerry Curve device
    > which I nearly always have with me so I could use that using suitable
    > DoF software. Can you advice which is the best software to use?
    > Preferably free!
    >
    > But even so, sometimes I might not have the BlackBerry device with
    > me. So I'm thinking of some kind of small mechanical calculator kinda
    > like a slide-rule or disc which I can attach to my camera or lenses.
    > I've seen this but it's limited in the number of focal lengths that
    > it can use so some guesswork may be required for zooms:
    >
    > http://www.dofmaster.com/custom.html
    >
    > What I think may be better (but bowing to your superior experience
    > and knowledge!) is using some charts. Again, at the same site I came
    > across this:
    >
    > http://www.dofmaster.com/charts.html
    >
    > I think that I can print one or two of these charts to cover my
    > lenses that I can then print very small and then laminate. I'd really
    > like to attach these to my camera strap. What do you think of this
    > idea? Or do you think that I should be approaching this differently?
    >
    > Thanks for reading this far. Hope to get some valuable feedback from
    > everyone but with the holidays I know that some of you may be a bit
    > distracted over the next few days.
    >
    > Happy holidays!


    DOF is not simply a function of lens and focus distances. It includes
    also the circle of confusion, the diameter of which is chosen to be
    'almost' a point taken to be acceptably sharp in the final image or
    print. Therefore, CoC is not a fixed size, but varies with the
    magnification ratio between the camera image and the print size, and
    complicated by the intended viewing distance of the final print. It is
    said that smaller images like those from P&S or cropped sensor cameras
    have greater DoF than larger images, but this is offset to some degree
    by the need for greater magnification to give a similar-sized print to
    that from a larger sensor.

    The original concept of DoF was Leica's, calculated for a 35mm negative
    enlarged to 10x8, and viewed at a distance equal to the print diagonal.
    Other sizes of film/sensor, print size, and viewing distance require a
    different CoC diameter. Some digital camera makers assume a CoC based
    on their sensor size, and a print viewing distance equal to the print
    diagonal, which tends to cancel the magnification factor (but is by no
    means guaranteed with very small or very large prints).

    Canon uses these assumptions with their DEP function on their dslrs,
    whereby placing one focus area on a near object and another on the
    farthest object and taking a half-pressure allows the camera to
    instantly calculate the required aperture, which can then be set using
    Av, a very handy function that I use frequently.

    The older lenses with DoF scales were calibrated more or less according
    to the Leica standard, and if used on cropped-sensor cameras will not
    be accurate unless allowance is made.

    BTW, viewing an image at 100% gives no idea at all of the DoF, since it
    applies only to a print at screen resolution, 72 ppi, which implies an
    image more than a metre across with most dslrs.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin.D, Dec 25, 2008
    #6
  7. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Paul Furman Guest

    Colin.D wrote:
    > ...
    > The original concept of DoF was Leica's, calculated for a 35mm negative
    > enlarged to 10x8, and viewed at a distance equal to the print diagonal.


    Wouldn't it be the same numbers for any size print at a viewing distance
    equal to the diagonal of the print? (assuming full frame sensor in this
    case).

    > Other sizes of film/sensor, print size, and viewing distance require a
    > different CoC diameter. Some digital camera makers assume a CoC based
    > on their sensor size, and a print viewing distance equal to the print
    > diagonal, which tends to cancel the magnification factor (but is by no
    > means guaranteed with very small or very large prints).


    Ah, OK, yep (generally).


    > Canon uses these assumptions with their DEP function on their dslrs,
    > whereby placing one focus area on a near object and another on the
    > farthest object and taking a half-pressure allows the camera to
    > instantly calculate the required aperture, which can then be set using
    > Av, a very handy function that I use frequently.
    >
    > The older lenses with DoF scales were calibrated more or less according
    > to the Leica standard, and if used on cropped-sensor cameras will not
    > be accurate unless allowance is made.
    >
    > BTW, viewing an image at 100% gives no idea at all of the DoF, since it
    > applies only to a print at screen resolution, 72 ppi, which implies an
    > image more than a metre across with most dslrs.


    I'm amazed how much nasty pixely stuff disappears in a print, even at
    200dpi or more magnification.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Dec 26, 2008
    #7
  8. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Colin.D Guest

    Paul Furman wrote:
    > Colin.D wrote:
    >> ...
    >> The original concept of DoF was Leica's, calculated for a 35mm
    >> negative enlarged to 10x8, and viewed at a distance equal to the print
    >> diagonal.

    >
    > Wouldn't it be the same numbers for any size print at a viewing distance
    > equal to the diagonal of the print? (assuming full frame sensor in this
    > case).


    Yes, for a FF sensor, maybe, but the Leica standard was for film, and I
    think that a higher standard may be desired for a high-megapixel camera,
    which means a smaller DoF. I was trying to make the point that DoF and
    COC pertain to particular setups, and are by no means universal.

    >
    >> Other sizes of film/sensor, print size, and viewing distance require
    >> a different CoC diameter. Some digital camera makers assume a CoC
    >> based on their sensor size, and a print viewing distance equal to the
    >> print diagonal, which tends to cancel the magnification factor (but is
    >> by no means guaranteed with very small or very large prints).

    >
    > Ah, OK, yep (generally).
    >
    >
    >> Canon uses these assumptions with their DEP function on their dslrs,
    >> whereby placing one focus area on a near object and another on the
    >> farthest object and taking a half-pressure allows the camera to
    >> instantly calculate the required aperture, which can then be set using
    >> Av, a very handy function that I use frequently.
    >>
    >> The older lenses with DoF scales were calibrated more or less
    >> according to the Leica standard, and if used on cropped-sensor
    >> cameras will not be accurate unless allowance is made.
    >>
    >> BTW, viewing an image at 100% gives no idea at all of the DoF, since
    >> it applies only to a print at screen resolution, 72 ppi, which implies
    >> an image more than a metre across with most dslrs.

    >
    > I'm amazed how much nasty pixely stuff disappears in a print, even at
    > 200dpi or more magnification.
    >

    Compared with 100% view on a monitor, yes. At 200 ppi the image is only
    a third as much enlarged as at 100%.

    Actually, I don't know where this 100% idiom came from. What it means
    is simply that the image is enlarged to give a 1:1 relationship between
    the image and the monitor ppi, i.e. each image pixel is displayed by one
    monitor pixel.

    This also means that comparisons of camera and lens performance judged
    by 100% images is false, since the magnification is a function of pixel
    density. A true comparison can only be made when the images are the
    same size, which doesn't happen with 100% crops.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin.D, Dec 26, 2008
    #8
  9. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Paul Furman Guest

    Colin.D wrote:
    > Paul Furman wrote:
    >> Colin.D wrote:
    >>> ...
    >>> BTW, viewing an image at 100% gives no idea at all of the DoF, since
    >>> it applies only to a print at screen resolution, 72 ppi, which
    >>> implies an image more than a metre across with most dslrs.

    >>
    >> I'm amazed how much nasty pixely stuff disappears in a print, even at
    >> 200dpi or more magnification.
    >>

    > Compared with 100% view on a monitor, yes. At 200 ppi the image is only
    > a third as much enlarged as at 100%.
    >
    > Actually, I don't know where this 100% idiom came from. What it means
    > is simply that the image is enlarged to give a 1:1 relationship between
    > the image and the monitor ppi, i.e. each image pixel is displayed by one
    > monitor pixel.
    >
    > This also means that comparisons of camera and lens performance judged
    > by 100% images is false, since the magnification is a function of pixel
    > density. A true comparison can only be made when the images are the
    > same size, which doesn't happen with 100% crops.


    Yes, probably the fair way to compare on-screen is to enlarge the low-MP
    shots to match the high-MP image. Or make prints & scan those :)

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Dec 26, 2008
    #9
  10. On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 00:30:02 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    <> wrote:

    [snip]
    >Just curious why you're trying to hyperfocal an autofocus camera...


    Sometimes I've got an object near to me and I want to maintain
    acceptable focus all the way out to the horizon.

    example:
    http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/guides/dof/hyperfocal1.html

    >"In the old days," hyperfocusing was done to save time and eliminate the
    >need for having to manually focus the lens in extreme situations -- i.e.
    >very low light, fast action, shooting over crowds, etc.
    >
    >Using modern cameras, it seems to me that most situations can be covered
    >with modes like aperture priority, shutter priority, or scene modes.
    >
    >Are you working with subjects which are hard to autofocus on? Or, is it
    >that you are just into manual shooting?


    See above. Not likely to be used in many occasions, but when I need
    to it's nice to know that I can!
    --
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Website : www.metalvortex.com
    Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/

    Brain! Brain! What is brain?!
     
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Dec 26, 2008
    #10
  11. On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 11:36:35 +1300, "Colin.D" <>
    wrote:

    >Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:


    [snip]
    >> I'd have thought it would be elementary to set the required circle of
    >> confusion and save this in the camera, and then when required
    >> activate a "hyperfocal lock" function (let's call it "HF-L") and then
    >> point the camera at the closest feature that you want in focus and
    >> the camera then locks focus to the hyperfocal distance. But the D700
    >> doesn't do this. So…

    [snip]

    >DOF is not simply a function of lens and focus distances. It includes
    >also the circle of confusion, the diameter of which is chosen to be
    >'almost' a point taken to be acceptably sharp in the final image or
    >print. Therefore, CoC is not a fixed size, but varies with the
    >magnification ratio between the camera image and the print size, and
    >complicated by the intended viewing distance of the final print. It is
    >said that smaller images like those from P&S or cropped sensor cameras
    >have greater DoF than larger images, but this is offset to some degree
    >by the need for greater magnification to give a similar-sized print to
    >that from a larger sensor.

    [snip]

    Yes, exactly. That's why I stated that the required circle of
    confusion value should be a parameter that is a user-entry into the
    camera. The photographer's knowledge and experience should enable a
    judgment to be made on a suitable value for circle of confusion.
    --
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Website : www.metalvortex.com
    Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/

    Brain! Brain! What is brain?!
     
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Dec 26, 2008
    #11
  12. On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 10:54:54 -0500, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    [snip]
    >All the above to say that your notion of adding so much precision to
    >indications in camera is not likely to be a very productive in real use.
    > Who would want to fool around in the field setting assumed print sizes
    >and desired DOF (in what units? Is it really useful or practical to
    >enter DOF in metres, fore and aft in the field?


    Not sure what level of precision you think I'm aiming for!

    Whatever is or isn't done in the future, in-camera features for this
    do not exist in the D700. So...

    ....I'm really more interested in knowing how other photographers
    handle this in the field (if at all). Received a couple of
    interesting suggestions.

    I'll probably print some charts out or load some software on the
    BlackBerry and test these in the field, and see what CoC values are
    acceptable. That was always my intention.

    >As I said in the other post, send your suggestion to the camera makers,
    >maybe they'll "see" the value in it...


    Maybe they will, maybe they won't. I'll not be holding my breadth on
    this. I know Canon had DEP and A-DEP which kinda worked but the level
    of acceptable focus for far-end and near-end objects was not really
    user configurable except maybe by changing the aperture.
    --
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Website : www.metalvortex.com
    Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/

    Brain! Brain! What is brain?!
     
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Dec 26, 2008
    #12
  13. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Kulvinder Singh Matharu" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 00:30:02 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > [snip]
    >>Just curious why you're trying to hyperfocal an autofocus camera...

    >
    > Sometimes I've got an object near to me and I want to maintain
    > acceptable focus all the way out to the horizon.
    >
    > example:
    > http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/guides/dof/hyperfocal1.html
    >


    Scene modes, such as landscape mode, tend to default to a hyperfocal type
    default. Have you run into problems with the standard implementation in
    such modes?

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Dec 26, 2008
    #13
  14. On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 23:09:10 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    <> wrote:

    [snip]
    >Scene modes, such as landscape mode, tend to default to a hyperfocal type
    >default. Have you run into problems with the standard implementation in
    >such modes?


    "scene modes"...you pulling my leg? If you're not...to me, it isn't
    just about getting the image, but about the process that takes you
    there, the creativity behind it.

    Anyway, I've decided. I'll likely use some charts, and test in the
    field to determine acceptable CoC values and the practicality of
    using these methods.
    --
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Website : www.metalvortex.com
    Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/

    Brain! Brain! What is brain?!
     
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Dec 27, 2008
    #14
  15. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    J. Clarke Guest

    Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:
    > On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 23:09:10 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > [snip]
    >> Scene modes, such as landscape mode, tend to default to a
    >> hyperfocal
    >> type default. Have you run into problems with the standard
    >> implementation in such modes?

    >
    > "scene modes"...you pulling my leg? If you're not...to me, it isn't
    > just about getting the image, but about the process that takes you
    > there, the creativity behind it.


    Don't be pedantic. A craftsman knows his tools. Learn what the scene
    modes do and use them when appropriate, don't just ignore them out of
    snobbery.

    > Anyway, I've decided. I'll likely use some charts, and test in the
    > field to determine acceptable CoC values and the practicality of
    > using these methods.


    --
    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 27, 2008
    #15
  16. On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 06:14:01 -0500, "J. Clarke"
    <> wrote:

    [snip]
    >Don't be pedantic. A craftsman knows his tools. Learn what the scene
    >modes do and use them when appropriate, don't just ignore them out of
    >snobbery.


    "pedantic"? "snobbery"?

    There're no such thing as "scene modes" on a D700.

    Is this thread dead yet?
    --
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Website : www.metalvortex.com
    Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/

    Brain! Brain! What is brain?!
     
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Dec 27, 2008
    #16
  17. On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:44:20 +0900, "Wilba"
    <> wrote:

    >Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:
    >>
    >> ...I'm really more interested in knowing how other photographers
    >> handle this in the field (if at all). Received a couple of
    >> interesting suggestions.

    >
    >Have you checked out Merklinger? http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/DOFR.html


    Thanks, looks interesting.

    Regards,
    --
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Website : www.metalvortex.com
    Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/

    Brain! Brain! What is brain?!
     
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Dec 28, 2008
    #17
  18. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Kulvinder Singh Matharu" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 23:09:10 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > [snip]
    >>Scene modes, such as landscape mode, tend to default to a hyperfocal type
    >>default. Have you run into problems with the standard implementation in
    >>such modes?

    >
    > "scene modes"...you pulling my leg? If you're not...to me, it isn't
    > just about getting the image, but about the process that takes you
    > there, the creativity behind it.
    >



    Sorry, didn't realize you are one of the poor, deprived artistic photogs
    using a professional cam that can't do some of the simpler things like
    hyperfocusing...

    Although, a little creative thinking might resolve your problem. By
    selecting all the AF areas and setting your autofocusing system to
    continuous tracking, I'd bet the camera defaults to a hyperfocus
    configuration. After all, what better way to keep a fast moving subject in
    focus is there than to maximize the amount of picture that is actually in
    focus?

    Besides, I'm guessing that, while your camera may not have a scene mode, the
    Nikon's scene recognition firmware is sophisticated enough to figure out
    when a hyperfocus setting will be appropriate.

    But, of course, if all of the resources Nikon has built into that camera
    can't keep it all in focus, have fun with those tables...

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Dec 29, 2008
    #18
  19. On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:42:02 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    <> wrote:

    >"Kulvinder Singh Matharu" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 23:09:10 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> [snip]
    >>>Scene modes, such as landscape mode, tend to default to a hyperfocal type
    >>>default. Have you run into problems with the standard implementation in
    >>>such modes?

    >>
    >> "scene modes"...you pulling my leg? If you're not...to me, it isn't
    >> just about getting the image, but about the process that takes you
    >> there, the creativity behind it.


    >Sorry, didn't realize you are one of the poor, deprived artistic photogs
    >using a professional cam that can't do some of the simpler things like
    >hyperfocusing...


    "poor"? "deprived"? I'm having fun :)

    And "artistic"? No, not really. I shoot to have fun. It's not about
    "point and shoot", but learning about the processes and
    techniques...I'd like to say "creative" ;)

    Everyone has their reasons for photography! I can still remember the
    pungent smell of chemicals from the darkroom when I was about 13
    years old and being interested in the development processes rather
    than in the act of taking a photograph.

    >Although, a little creative thinking might resolve your problem. By
    >selecting all the AF areas and setting your autofocusing system to
    >continuous tracking, I'd bet the camera defaults to a hyperfocus
    >configuration. After all, what better way to keep a fast moving subject in
    >focus is there than to maximize the amount of picture that is actually in
    >focus?


    Don't see it as a problem! It's more of an interesting area of
    photography that I thought I'd look into. It certainly isn't a
    problem.

    Your suggestion...I don't think that it will work, as the camera will
    focus on the nearest object or at least to the tracked object (of
    course with G or D lenses face recognition can be utilised but that
    doesn't help). DoF I can control with the aperture. So what aperture
    value should I choose? Certainly I don't want diffraction to start
    raising it's ugly head.

    >Besides, I'm guessing that, while your camera may not have a scene mode, the
    >Nikon's scene recognition firmware is sophisticated enough to figure out
    >when a hyperfocus setting will be appropriate.


    I don't see how it can. It will focus on the nearest object in it's
    AF points or at least to a tracked object (see above). I remember
    having the hardest time with seagulls and albatrosses using focus
    tracking on my Canon 12 months ago. In hindsight I should have
    increased my DoF to give me a bit more focusing leeway but I was
    afraid of diffraction...better a less than ideal photo than no photo
    I suppose! But I did get a shot that I was reasonably happy with:

    http://www.metalvortex.com/myphotos/antarctica/southern_giant_petrel.htm

    This was taken just as we're heading into the Drake Passage off
    Antarctica.

    My Canon (40D) had A-DEP which tried to keep in focus everything in
    it's AF points but was fiddly to use. I'm not sure if newer Canon's
    still have A-DEP...it may have gone the way of the Dodo like DEP.

    >But, of course, if all of the resources Nikon has built into that camera
    >can't keep it all in focus, have fun with those tables...


    "Charts" my friend, "charts"!

    >Take Care,


    You too.
    --
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Website : www.metalvortex.com
    Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/

    Brain! Brain! What is brain?!
     
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Dec 30, 2008
    #19
  20. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Snip...


    >>>>Scene modes, such as landscape mode, tend to default to a hyperfocal
    >>>>type
    >>>>default. Have you run into problems with the standard implementation in
    >>>>such modes?
    >>>
    >>> "scene modes"...you pulling my leg? If you're not...to me, it isn't
    >>> just about getting the image, but about the process that takes you
    >>> there, the creativity behind it.

    >
    >>Sorry, didn't realize you are one of the poor, deprived artistic photogs
    >>using a professional cam that can't do some of the simpler things like
    >>hyperfocusing...

    >
    > "poor"? "deprived"? I'm having fun :)
    >
    > And "artistic"? No, not really. I shoot to have fun. It's not about
    > "point and shoot", but learning about the processes and
    > techniques...I'd like to say "creative" ;)


    Sorry, Kulvinder, I got a bit too snippy on that one. Frigid temps and lack
    of light makes me a little edgy, sometimes...

    Regarding the process of photography, I'm with you on that one. I think
    it's safe to say I'm a little more cognisant of process than most
    shutterbugs...

    >
    > Everyone has their reasons for photography! I can still remember the
    > pungent smell of chemicals from the darkroom when I was about 13
    > years old and being interested in the development processes rather
    > than in the act of taking a photograph.


    You too? I got hooked on photography at a summer camp that used photography
    as an activity. Shot my first BW pics there with an old rangefinder and
    processed the film / pics in a temporary darkroom.

    Loved every second of it...

    >
    >>Although, a little creative thinking might resolve your problem. By
    >>selecting all the AF areas and setting your autofocusing system to
    >>continuous tracking, I'd bet the camera defaults to a hyperfocus
    >>configuration. After all, what better way to keep a fast moving subject
    >>in
    >>focus is there than to maximize the amount of picture that is actually in
    >>focus?

    >
    > Don't see it as a problem! It's more of an interesting area of
    > photography that I thought I'd look into. It certainly isn't a
    > problem.
    >
    > Your suggestion...I don't think that it will work, as the camera will
    > focus on the nearest object or at least to the tracked object (


    I'm not so sure. AF systems don't always focus on the nearest object,
    especially with multi-point systems.

    Unless you tell the cam to focus on a specific point, I think most AF
    systems will try to get everything under all the points in focus. Now, if
    the camera is looking for a moving subject to track, but there isn't
    anything moving, I'd bet your system will give you a fairly good DOF,
    probably even revert to hyperfocusing...

    While the hyperfocus tactic isn't going to work very well with a large
    aperture, many sporting events are held out in the open, during the day, and
    I've found my cams tend to set smaller apertures in "action mode" as long as
    there is sufficient light to get a shutter speed up in the plus 1/250 -
    1/500 range. By maximizing the DOF, the AF system isn't as likely to yield
    a fuzzy picture as the subject moves around. Without being specifically
    placed in an action, or sports, mode I'd guess that a similar assumption is
    built into the logic of most servo mode AF systems...

    of
    > course with G or D lenses face recognition can be utilised but that
    > doesn't help). DoF I can control with the aperture. So what aperture
    > value should I choose? Certainly I don't want diffraction to start
    > raising it's ugly head.


    I'm a fairly patient, systematic photographer, so I tend to do a lot of
    experimentation. I'd probably approach this challenge by doing a series of
    test pics, starting at the small end of the aperture range. With a suitable
    scene in front of my lens, I'd shoot some pics at each aperture setting from
    the small end and increasing the aperture size three or four stops. The
    resulting images should give you a good idea of both DOF and IQ...

    >
    >>Besides, I'm guessing that, while your camera may not have a scene mode,
    >>the
    >>Nikon's scene recognition firmware is sophisticated enough to figure out
    >>when a hyperfocus setting will be appropriate.

    >
    > I don't see how it can. It will focus on the nearest object in it's
    > AF points or at least to a tracked object (see above).


    Once again, are you sure? Could not the logic of the firmware be
    sophisticated enough to know that a subject with large amounts of green
    (foliage) and blue (sky) is a landscape? Especially if there is no moving
    subject? I've heard the D700 can be set to AF on a moving subject of a
    specified colour. If that is correct, why can the programming not make
    assumptions about what type of scene is present based on colour recognition?

    I remember
    > having the hardest time with seagulls and albatrosses using focus
    > tracking on my Canon 12 months ago. In hindsight I should have
    > increased my DoF to give me a bit more focusing leeway but I was
    > afraid of diffraction...better a less than ideal photo than no photo
    > I suppose! But I did get a shot that I was reasonably happy with:
    >
    > http://www.metalvortex.com/myphotos/antarctica/southern_giant_petrel.htm
    >
    > This was taken just as we're heading into the Drake Passage off
    > Antarctica.
    >
    > My Canon (40D) had A-DEP which tried to keep in focus everything in
    > it's AF points but was fiddly to use. I'm not sure if newer Canon's
    > still have A-DEP...it may have gone the way of the Dodo like DEP.


    My XSi has A-dep, but I've always used this type of auto DOF system for less
    active subjects. Using the action mode on my XSi would probably yield a
    better bird pic than this mode.

    Over the years, I've developed a few thumb rules that have worked well for
    me. One of those rules is to choose an auto shutter speed mode for fast
    moving subjects and an auto aperture mode for low-light or more still
    subjects. When shooting fast moving subjects, I know I won't be happy with
    a blurred shot (in most cases), so I set the speed to 1/250 - 1/500 or
    better, and I work with whatever aperture it gives me. The resulting
    aperture is often small enough to give me a nice DOF that is forgiving when
    the subject moves around. If I were to choose an arbitrary aperture, I'd
    probably make my job more difficult because the DOF might be excessively
    shallow, and the extra shutter speed much quicker than is actually needed to
    stop the action.

    With still subjects, I'm more interested in playing with DOF, so I like to
    pick the aperture there, and the shutter speed isn't critical since I can
    drag out the tripod, if necessary.

    >
    >>But, of course, if all of the resources Nikon has built into that camera
    >>can't keep it all in focus, have fun with those tables...

    >
    > "Charts" my friend, "charts"!
    >

    Ooops, my bad... To a blind guy, everything sounds like a table... :)




    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Dec 30, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. JackB

    Hyperfocal Distance and Nikon D100

    JackB, Oct 14, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    390
    David J. Littleboy
    Oct 14, 2003
  2. leo

    hyperfocal distance

    leo, Jun 30, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    80
    Views:
    2,157
    Roland Karlsson
    Jul 8, 2004
  3. D70 Setting hyperfocal distance

    , Nov 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    502
  4. Brian
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    509
    Brian
    Oct 2, 2005
  5. Replies:
    11
    Views:
    813
    John Bean
    Oct 28, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page