hyperfocal settings

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by David Hare-Scott, Jun 21, 2013.

  1. Once upon a time lenses had guide lines on them that you could use to set
    the lens so that the selected region was in focus within the limits of the
    available depth of field. This feature was available on zooms as well as
    fixed lenses. It is particularly useful for landscapes where you can have
    the focal plane closer than infinity but get infinity in focus thus having
    as much of the scene in focus as possible for any given aperture. How do I
    do that with a lens that has no such focal limit markers on it? Why do lens
    makers no longer put these markers on?

    David
     
    David Hare-Scott, Jun 21, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. David Hare-Scott

    peternew Guest

    On 6/20/2013 8:12 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
    > Once upon a time lenses had guide lines on them that you could use to
    > set the lens so that the selected region was in focus within the limits
    > of the available depth of field. This feature was available on zooms as
    > well as fixed lenses. It is particularly useful for landscapes where
    > you can have the focal plane closer than infinity but get infinity in
    > focus thus having as much of the scene in focus as possible for any
    > given aperture. How do I do that with a lens that has no such focal
    > limit markers on it? Why do lens makers no longer put these markers on?
    >
    > David


    If you don't have a calculator handy, try your DOF preview, if your
    camera has one. Otherwise f16 focused at about 1/3 of infinity is a
    decent rule of thumb. Since you are shooting digital, you can bracket
    that setting.

    --
    PeterN
     
    peternew, Jun 21, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-06-20 17:12:59 -0700, "David Hare-Scott" <>
    > said:
    >> Once upon a time lenses had guide lines on them that you could use to
    >> set the lens so that the selected region was in focus within the
    >> limits of the available depth of field. This feature was available
    >> on zooms as well as fixed lenses.
    >> It is particularly useful for landscapes where you can have the focal
    >> plane closer than infinity but get infinity in focus thus having as
    >> much of the scene in focus as possible for any given aperture.

    >
    > All still possible.
    >
    >> How do I do that with a lens that has no such focal limit markers on
    >> it?

    >
    > Shoot in aperture priority mode, or shoot manual, and make the
    > hyperfocal DoF calculations yourself. There are calculators and charts
    > which can help in this.
    > There are apps available for smart phones and computers which will
    > make this easier for you.
    > < http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html >
    > < http://dofmaster.com/ >
    > <
    > https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/simple-dof-calculator/id301222730?mt=8
    > > <

    > https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.aimenrg.dof&hl=en >
    > <
    > http://www.nikonians.org/reviews?alias=dof-and-hyperfocal-distance-tables-and-calculator
    >>

    >


    Thanks for those.

    As portable computing devices (except cameras) are against my religion I
    will have to print some charts. One for each lens. And find the right one
    and read it before the light changes or the subject moves. Groaaaaaaaan.

    >> Why do lens makers no longer put these markers on?

    >
    > That is a question you will have to put to the lens manufacturers.
    >


    This is crazy. Why do I have to carry a chart or a pocket computer to get
    at this, the old analog solution was far more convenient and quick and
    sufficiently accurate. So much for progress.

    D
     
    David Hare-Scott, Jun 21, 2013
    #3
  4. David Hare-Scott

    nospam Guest

    In article <kq0eaf$hvk$>, David Hare-Scott
    <> wrote:

    > As portable computing devices (except cameras) are against my religion


    strange religion, one which is opposed to progress.

    > I will have to print some charts. One for each lens. And find the right one
    > and read it before the light changes or the subject moves. Groaaaaaaaan.


    or just let the camera do it for you.

    for instance, some cameras can pick the f/stop needed to keep
    everything in focus, based on the distance measured at each autofocus
    point.

    > >> Why do lens makers no longer put these markers on?

    > >
    > > That is a question you will have to put to the lens manufacturers.

    >
    > This is crazy. Why do I have to carry a chart or a pocket computer to get
    > at this, the old analog solution was far more convenient and quick and
    > sufficiently accurate. So much for progress.


    lenses have been moving away from physical aperture rings, so where
    would these markings go?

    zoom lenses are almost always a two ring design (not push-pull) and
    there's no way to put the markings on such a lens.
     
    nospam, Jun 21, 2013
    #4
  5. David Hare-Scott

    RichA Guest

    On Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:12:59 PM UTC-4, David Hare-Scott wrote:
    > Once upon a time lenses had guide lines on them that you could use to set
    >
    > the lens so that the selected region was in focus within the limits of the
    >
    > available depth of field. This feature was available on zooms as well as
    >
    > fixed lenses. It is particularly useful for landscapes where you can have
    >
    > the focal plane closer than infinity but get infinity in focus thus having
    >
    > as much of the scene in focus as possible for any given aperture. How doI
    >
    > do that with a lens that has no such focal limit markers on it? Why do lens
    >
    > makers no longer put these markers on?
    >
    >
    >
    > David


    Be careful doing hyperfocal anything with high-resolution digital cameras. What passed as "in-focus" in the old film days probably won't today and will look blurred. I'd halve the hyper-focal distance these days. If it was 20ft (depth of focus) on an old lens, consider it 10ft until otherwise determined. Using DOF preview with a DSLR isn't as easy at it sound since the image goes darker and just like with an EVF, the "screen" in the camera becomes more grainy.
     
    RichA, Jun 21, 2013
    #5
  6. David Hare-Scott <> wrote:
    > Once upon a time lenses had guide lines on them that you could use to set
    > the lens so that the selected region was in focus within the limits of the
    > available depth of field. This feature was available on zooms as well as
    > fixed lenses. It is particularly useful for landscapes where you can have
    > the focal plane closer than infinity but get infinity in focus thus having
    > as much of the scene in focus as possible for any given aperture. How do I
    > do that with a lens that has no such focal limit markers on it? Why do lens
    > makers no longer put these markers on?


    DOF depends on not only the focal length and aperture. It also
    depends on enlargement and viewing distance.

    With 35mm film most people used around 4x6 inch or a little
    larger (and if they went much larger, they knew what they did)
    and the sensor size was known.

    With digital you get variable sensor sizes (the same lens may
    be used on FF, APS-crop and 4/3rds sensors, so the same print
    size means different enlargements) and more and more people
    using larger and larger display sizes (be it a 12x18 inch
    print or 100% view).

    If you had a CoC on the sensor of 0.03mm, that means on print
    0.125mm (FF on 4x6 inch) or 0.75mm (4/3rds on 12x18 inch).
    You'll easily see that at the same viewing distance one will
    be vastly easier visible than the other.

    Then comes the fact that people tend to inspect larger prints
    of good photos more closely ...

    So in the end, there's no marking a lens maker could reasonably
    use that's valid for most circumstances: either you stop down
    much more than you need or stuff will not be in focus enough.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 21, 2013
    #6
  7. David Hare-Scott

    AnthonyL Guest

    On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:12:59 +1000, "David Hare-Scott"
    <> wrote:

    >Once upon a time lenses had guide lines on them that you could use to set
    >the lens so that the selected region was in focus within the limits of the
    >available depth of field. This feature was available on zooms as well as
    >fixed lenses. It is particularly useful for landscapes where you can have
    >the focal plane closer than infinity but get infinity in focus thus having
    >as much of the scene in focus as possible for any given aperture. How do I
    >do that with a lens that has no such focal limit markers on it? Why do lens
    >makers no longer put these markers on?
    >


    1) I understand that hyperfocal for film doesn't translate so well to
    digital

    2) Many lenses today can fit full and crop cameras, complicating the
    issue

    3) You can easily take a number of pictures, focussed around 1/3rd of
    the way in, with a bit of exposure bracketing to give different DOF's
    (you know where abouts you are going to start on a landscape anyway).

    Otherwise I can't think of any good explanations. I never have been
    able to get anything useful out of DOF preview.

    --
    AnthonyL
     
    AnthonyL, Jun 21, 2013
    #7
  8. David Hare-Scott

    peternew Guest

    On 6/21/2013 2:00 PM, BobA wrote:
    > In article <51c3b600$0$3744$-secrets.com>,
    > peternew <> wrote:
    >>
    >> [ ... ] Otherwise f16 focused at about 1/3 of infinity is a
    >> decent rule of thumb. [ ... ]

    >
    > Hum. inf/3=inf. So how does that work again?
    >


    Figure it out.

    --
    PeterN
     
    peternew, Jun 21, 2013
    #8
  9. David Hare-Scott

    peternew Guest

    On 6/21/2013 3:16 PM, BobA wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > BobA <> wrote:
    >> In article <51c3b600$0$3744$-secrets.com>,
    >> peternew <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> [ ... ] Otherwise f16 focused at about 1/3 of infinity is a
    >>> decent rule of thumb. [ ... ]

    >
    > Clearly, the manufacturers of digital cameras
    > ought to have a <hyperfocal> button or menu
    > pick. It would be very easy for them to do.
    >


    You may very well be right, but they don't. The workaround is fairly simple.

    --
    PeterN
     
    peternew, Jun 21, 2013
    #9
  10. David Hare-Scott

    nospam Guest

    In article <51c4a8d5$0$3746$-secrets.com>, peternew
    <> wrote:

    > > Clearly, the manufacturers of digital cameras
    > > ought to have a <hyperfocal> button or menu
    > > pick. It would be very easy for them to do.

    >
    > You may very well be right, but they don't. The workaround is fairly simple.


    some do.
     
    nospam, Jun 21, 2013
    #10
  11. Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > David Hare-Scott <> wrote:
    >> Once upon a time lenses had guide lines on them that you could use
    >> to set the lens so that the selected region was in focus within the
    >> limits of the available depth of field. This feature was available
    >> on zooms as well as fixed lenses. It is particularly useful for
    >> landscapes where you can have the focal plane closer than infinity
    >> but get infinity in focus thus having as much of the scene in focus
    >> as possible for any given aperture. How do I do that with a lens
    >> that has no such focal limit markers on it? Why do lens makers no
    >> longer put these markers on?

    >
    > DOF depends on not only the focal length and aperture. It also
    > depends on enlargement and viewing distance.
    >
    > With 35mm film most people used around 4x6 inch or a little
    > larger (and if they went much larger, they knew what they did)
    > and the sensor size was known.
    >
    > With digital you get variable sensor sizes (the same lens may
    > be used on FF, APS-crop and 4/3rds sensors, so the same print
    > size means different enlargements) and more and more people
    > using larger and larger display sizes (be it a 12x18 inch
    > print or 100% view).
    >
    > If you had a CoC on the sensor of 0.03mm, that means on print
    > 0.125mm (FF on 4x6 inch) or 0.75mm (4/3rds on 12x18 inch).
    > You'll easily see that at the same viewing distance one will
    > be vastly easier visible than the other.
    >
    > Then comes the fact that people tend to inspect larger prints
    > of good photos more closely ...
    >
    > So in the end, there's no marking a lens maker could reasonably
    > use that's valid for most circumstances: either you stop down
    > much more than you need or stuff will not be in focus enough.
    >
    > -Wolfgang


    You may be right but as you have explained it so far I don't find either of
    your explanations convincing.

    On the problem of using lenses intended for one sensor size with another, I
    see that would have been very rare or impossible with film. With digital if
    the lensmaker puts the markings on a lens intended for a given format the
    marks are designed with that in mind and if you mix and match all bets are
    off. I wouldn't expect a huge number of people using FX lenses on a DX body
    or the reverse, can you tell me this is common? Would a manufacturer really
    leave this feature off in the expectation of people using their lens with a
    sensor that it wasn't designed for?

    On the matter of size of enlargement, the software and charts available to
    provide this data are configured with the CoC of the sensor and take no
    account of the size the image will be viewed, although of course one could
    do that. If you are intending to do large prints then you might need to
    configure the software differently or to be more conservative with settings,
    or you might rely on the natural behaviour to view the prints from further
    away. A film photograper had to do the same didn't they in how they used
    the lens markers? It seems to me digital is no different in this respect.

    I can see that the price and availablilty of large prints may have changed
    the number of these produced but still the majority I see in the output bin
    at the local print station are 4X6. These numbers relate mainly to the
    behaviour of the casual P&S and phone shooter who neither know nor care
    about CoC. I would expect those who do know and care would still be
    assisted by having a reference marker available even if in some situations
    they had to be conservative in their use.

    Thanks for you input.

    David
     
    David Hare-Scott, Jun 21, 2013
    #11
  12. AnthonyL wrote:
    > On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:12:59 +1000, "David Hare-Scott"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Once upon a time lenses had guide lines on them that you could use
    >> to set the lens so that the selected region was in focus within the
    >> limits of the available depth of field. This feature was available
    >> on zooms as well as fixed lenses. It is particularly useful for
    >> landscapes where you can have the focal plane closer than infinity
    >> but get infinity in focus thus having as much of the scene in focus
    >> as possible for any given aperture. How do I do that with a lens
    >> that has no such focal limit markers on it? Why do lens makers no
    >> longer put these markers on?
    >>

    >
    > 1) I understand that hyperfocal for film doesn't translate so well to
    > digital


    Why?

    D
     
    David Hare-Scott, Jun 21, 2013
    #12
  13. peternew wrote:
    > On 6/21/2013 3:16 PM, BobA wrote:
    >> In article <>,
    >> BobA <> wrote:
    >>> In article <51c3b600$0$3744$-secrets.com>,
    >>> peternew <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> [ ... ] Otherwise f16 focused at about 1/3 of infinity is a
    >>>> decent rule of thumb. [ ... ]

    >>
    >> Clearly, the manufacturers of digital cameras
    >> ought to have a <hyperfocal> button or menu
    >> pick. It would be very easy for them to do.
    >>

    >
    > You may very well be right, but they don't. The workaround is fairly
    > simple.


    Carrying a chart about may be simple but to me it is by no means convenient
    or efficient as I then have to find the chart and my glasses as well as stop
    to read the bloody thing while the subject or the light conditions are
    fleeting. I see no reason why I should acquire a hand-held device that does
    these sums either as I have the same problem with vision AND I am already
    carrying a device with considerable computing capacity that has access to
    the required parameters to give me the guidance on want on board without
    being configured.

    Building this feature in seems more valuable to me than many of those that
    are already common.


    D
     
    David Hare-Scott, Jun 22, 2013
    #13
  14. David Hare-Scott

    nospam Guest

    In article <kq2ldn$imp$>, David Hare-Scott
    <> wrote:

    > On the problem of using lenses intended for one sensor size with another, I
    > see that would have been very rare or impossible with film. With digital if
    > the lensmaker puts the markings on a lens intended for a given format the
    > marks are designed with that in mind and if you mix and match all bets are
    > off. I wouldn't expect a huge number of people using FX lenses on a DX body
    > or the reverse, can you tell me this is common?


    very common.

    a lot of people buy fx lenses thinking one day they will upgrade to a
    full frame camera. or, they have old lenses from film days. plus, a
    full frame lens on a dx sensor is using the sweet spot and will produce
    better results than a dx lens, all other things being equal.

    dx lenses on fx is not that common, but it's still done on occasion.
    some dx lenses do cover the full frame at some lengths, or the camera
    can be set to dx mode.

    > Would a manufacturer really
    > leave this feature off in the expectation of people using their lens with a
    > sensor that it wasn't designed for?


    the main reason it's not there is because there's no aperture ring
    anymore.

    the fact that there are multiple sensor sizes is secondary.

    it's also a low demand feature and can be done electronically anyway.
     
    nospam, Jun 22, 2013
    #14
  15. David Hare-Scott

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Dudley
    Hanks <> wrote:

    > > > Clearly, the manufacturers of digital cameras
    > > > ought to have a <hyperfocal> button or menu
    > > > pick. It would be very easy for them to do.

    > >
    > > You may very well be right, but they don't. The workaround is fairly
    > > simple.

    >
    > some do.
    >
    > Didn't the Canon DSLR start out with a hyperfocal setting that morphed into
    > the ADEP feature?


    yep. it was dep and later a-dep, going back to film days.

    dep worked by taking a reading at the far and near points and the
    camera figured out the rest.

    a-dep looks at the focus points and decides what will get everything in
    focus. it's more automated, which has advantages and disadvantages.
     
    nospam, Jun 22, 2013
    #15
  16. David Hare-Scott

    RichA Guest

    On Friday, June 21, 2013 4:48:05 AM UTC-4, bugbear wrote:
    > RichA wrote:
    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Be careful doing hyperfocal anything with high-resolution digital cameras. What passed as "in-focus" in the old film days probably won't today and will look blurred.

    >
    >
    >
    > Indeed. Back in 2009, there were already "interesting" limits to detail,
    >
    > resolvable only via focus STACKING!
    >
    >
    >
    > http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html
    >
    > http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html
    >
    >
    >
    > BugBear


    Thanks, interesting articles.
     
    RichA, Jun 22, 2013
    #16
  17. David Hare-Scott

    AnthonyL Guest

    On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 08:52:19 +1000, "David Hare-Scott"
    <> wrote:

    >AnthonyL wrote:
    >> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:12:59 +1000, "David Hare-Scott"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Once upon a time lenses had guide lines on them that you could use
    >>> to set the lens so that the selected region was in focus within the
    >>> limits of the available depth of field. This feature was available
    >>> on zooms as well as fixed lenses. It is particularly useful for
    >>> landscapes where you can have the focal plane closer than infinity
    >>> but get infinity in focus thus having as much of the scene in focus
    >>> as possible for any given aperture. How do I do that with a lens
    >>> that has no such focal limit markers on it? Why do lens makers no
    >>> longer put these markers on?
    >>>

    >>
    >> 1) I understand that hyperfocal for film doesn't translate so well to
    >> digital

    >


    I've read such arguments as at

    http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/19003280

    more than once.

    Google throws up a variety of views.


    --
    AnthonyL
     
    AnthonyL, Jun 22, 2013
    #17
  18. David Hare-Scott

    me Guest

    On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:14:55 GMT, d (AnthonyL)
    wrote:

    >, with a bit of exposure bracketing to give different DOF's


    Is that some new type of math? How does a scene's exposure effect the
    DOF?
     
    me, Jun 22, 2013
    #18
  19. David Hare-Scott

    David Taylor Guest

    On 22/06/2013 15:12, me wrote:
    > On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:14:55 GMT, d (AnthonyL)
    > wrote:
    >
    >> , with a bit of exposure bracketing to give different DOF's

    >
    > Is that some new type of math? How does a scene's exposure effect the
    > DOF?


    Presumably, bracketing by change of aperture.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Jun 22, 2013
    #19
  20. David Hare-Scott

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Dudley
    Hanks <> wrote:

    > Have you checked into your cam's landscape mode? It would make sense for
    > the cam to utilize hyperfocal techniques in a mode where people want to
    > maximize DOF...


    now that you mention it, i think landscape mode does set it to the
    hyperfocal distance.
     
    nospam, Jun 22, 2013
    #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:
    404
    David J. Littleboy
    Oct 14, 2003
  2. jean

    Why is hyperfocal not in focus?

    jean, Jan 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    845
  3. leo

    hyperfocal distance

    leo, Jun 30, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    80
    Views:
    2,222
    Roland Karlsson
    Jul 8, 2004
  4. D70 Setting hyperfocal distance

    , Nov 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    523
  5. Brian
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    527
    Brian
    Oct 2, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page