focus at hyperfocal distance
- Thread starter mukul
- Start date
I would be cautious of focusing at so called hyper focal distance with modern digital, you may be disappointed in what isn't in focus !
Upvote
0
mukul said:
Don't.
Hyperfocal focusing is the one way to guarantee nothing of any importance is in focus in your image. Focus on the subject, and let the rest fall where it will.
If the subject is a mountain in the distance, focus on that, if it is a cobweb in the foreground focus on that. The two methods I know of to improve apparent dof are focus stacking, even for landscapes, and using tilt lenses judiciously.
Upvote
0
sunnyVan said:
Yes but would you answer the OP's question? How does he then use that information given his lens doesn't have a distance scale!
Upvote
0
Hi nighthawk.
Use a laser measure?! ;D orestimate, trouble with estimations is size, some of us can estimate to within a few thou when looking at feeler gauges, most can estimate within a few inches when looking at timber or a few feet when looking at a house, but many of us are completely unable to judge a hundred or two hundred yards and even less a half mile or a mile distant.
This is not from an empirical study, but from personal experience whilst interacting with other people so may be completely flawed due to sampling size. (85% of 17 people agreed with this)! ??? ;D
Cheers, Graham.
Use a laser measure?! ;D or
This is not from an empirical study, but from personal experience whilst interacting with other people so may be completely flawed due to sampling size. (85% of 17 people agreed with this)! ??? ;D
Cheers, Graham.
nighthawk82 said:
Upvote
0
I no longer use hypofocal distance. The promise that everything in frame will be sharp simply is not true.
You can test this yourself. Use live view x10 magnification on something 1/3 into your frame then obtain 100% sharpness. While still in live view at x10 magnification, move through your image and you'll see that elements in the foreground and background are soft.
As Sporgon suggests, focus on your subject or alternatively, try focus stacking.
You can test this yourself. Use live view x10 magnification on something 1/3 into your frame then obtain 100% sharpness. While still in live view at x10 magnification, move through your image and you'll see that elements in the foreground and background are soft.
As Sporgon suggests, focus on your subject or alternatively, try focus stacking.
Upvote
0
Use a tape measure, that's the cheapest, then switch your lens to manual focus to lock the distance in and recompose if necessary. I'm debating using a digital laser (£28 from DIY store) - maybe a bit excessive price wise.
More importantly, how are you acquiring your hyper focal distance? I would strongly recommend taking some test shots using you apps and then look at the far distance on the PC - you will probably be horrified.
I spent half a day in the countryside, at one spot, focussing on different distances progressively further away from camera position at f11 and f16. I then studied the results on the PC and now have my own chart for a small variety of focal lengths at f11 and f16. All the photos I took are at head height (ie 5'10" off the ground) the nearer to the ground you go the more depth of field you need- going low just didin't work if I wanted the background in focus.
Focus stacking is good providing there is nothing moving in the frame such as grass, trees or water - this complicated it.
But the method of measurement is pointless if the hyperfocal distance itself is inaccurate. I did eventually find a good chart online that matched my own figures, it came as an excel file, so I just printed what I wanted and now carry that. I'll post a link later if I can find it.
Remember as well, the nearer to the ground you get will significantly increase your problems if you want the whole shot in focus.
More importantly, how are you acquiring your hyper focal distance? I would strongly recommend taking some test shots using you apps and then look at the far distance on the PC - you will probably be horrified.
I spent half a day in the countryside, at one spot, focussing on different distances progressively further away from camera position at f11 and f16. I then studied the results on the PC and now have my own chart for a small variety of focal lengths at f11 and f16. All the photos I took are at head height (ie 5'10" off the ground) the nearer to the ground you go the more depth of field you need- going low just didin't work if I wanted the background in focus.
Focus stacking is good providing there is nothing moving in the frame such as grass, trees or water - this complicated it.
But the method of measurement is pointless if the hyperfocal distance itself is inaccurate. I did eventually find a good chart online that matched my own figures, it came as an excel file, so I just printed what I wanted and now carry that. I'll post a link later if I can find it.
Remember as well, the nearer to the ground you get will significantly increase your problems if you want the whole shot in focus.
Upvote
0
i use the hyperfocal method with some older manual focus wide angle lenses. at small apertures you can get acceptable results. generally for landscapes (set infinity mark at far aperture setting)
if you don't have a distance scale with aperture range lines then it would be a large hassle. much simpler to just focus on your subject as others have said.
if you don't have a distance scale with aperture range lines then it would be a large hassle. much simpler to just focus on your subject as others have said.
Upvote
0
Focus about 1/3 of the way up your picture and use a narrow aperture and you'll be okay most of the time.
For me I try to make sure my key subject is in focus and let the rest image fall at it is.
While I have used it I don't find it practical.
To be accurate you would need a distance measuring tool (like something a golfer might use).
As said already a Tilt Shift lens is an option.
I like mine the 24mm TSE
It is a bit technical.
My final advice is if you don't already own it the 16-35mm F4 L does great all round sharpness.
For me I try to make sure my key subject is in focus and let the rest image fall at it is.
While I have used it I don't find it practical.
To be accurate you would need a distance measuring tool (like something a golfer might use).
As said already a Tilt Shift lens is an option.
I like mine the 24mm TSE
It is a bit technical.
My final advice is if you don't already own it the 16-35mm F4 L does great all round sharpness.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:Valvebounce said:
I think it is fair to say that many men have trouble knowing the difference between 5" and 9"
Men don't have that problem, women do. They've been told their whole lives that 6" is a foot.
Upvote
0
mukul said:
I found this great app for my Kindle Fire. It gives the hyper-focal distance: https://www.amazon.com/Essence-Computing-Ltd-Depth-Calculator/dp/B00ANTCK56
Then you need a range finder since you have no distance scale. I think you can get by without it. Half the hyper-focal distance and beyond will be in focus.
Here's a good read explaining hyper-focal distance: https://photographylife.com/hyperfocal-distance-explained
Upvote
0
