Why no "maximum depth of field program" ?

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
927
940
I still wonder, why Canon hasn't taken the chance to provide the EOS R5 with an AUTOMATIC maximum DOF program.
It would be a huge help for landscapers, if you could automatically obtain maximum DOF to infinity, for preselected apertures. All new AF lenses lack a usable DOF scale...
With, for instance rangefinder lenses, Leica, Zeiss or even Canon Nikon manual (No AF) lenses, it was easy, especially for wide angles.
I'm convinced, this would be a welcome feature for many stills photographers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Mar 25, 2011
16,434
1,423
Once upon a time, there was a setting like that, or very similar. I never used it and apparently not enough used it to justify taking up one of the valuable positions on the Mode Dial.

IIt last appeared on a 50D and few seem to miss it.


|


Canon A-Dep2.JPG
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

privatebydesign

Garfield is back...
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,188
3,410
120
I think the bigger problem for that kind of feature now is the concept of ‘acceptable focus,’ which is the determining factor for dof, is so different for different people. Birders that crop in to 1:1 have very different ideas of acceptable focus than landscapers outputting at web resolutions.

Of course the acceptable focus concept does have definitions, but nowadays it is far too easy to shout bad things about anything rather than learn the definition of what is being denigrated.
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
927
940
I think the bigger problem for that kind of feature now is the concept of ‘acceptable focus,’ which is the determining factor for dof, is so different for different people. Birders that crop in to 1:1 have very different ideas of acceptable focus than landscapers outputting at web resolutions.

Of course the acceptable focus concept does have definitions, but nowadays it is far too easy to shout bad things about anything rather than learn the definition of what is being denigrated.
You are basically right, of course (really great article by Keith on the subject(y)).
But in practice (Zeiss Biogon 25mm f2,8), I obtain tack-sharp landscapes from near to infinity.
Sharpness distribution is obviously a matter of compromise, yet, in my specific case, I get better results than with the EF 24mm f1,4, and know exactly what will be in "focus".
The EF 24mm is about as sharp as the Zeiss, but no way to know from where to where ...
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,733
597
Davidson, NC
I use hyperfocal distance as a guide. In a landscape if the nearest things I want in focus are farther away than the hyperfocal distance for that aperture, then I should be OK. In shooting video of basketball pick up games, I would set manual focus, leave the zoom alone, and focus on the rim of a basket. DOF kept everybody on the court in good focus. It beat having autofocus fishing around dusting shooting. And I could zoom in during post, especially if I shot 4K and output was 1080p. All that works best with shorter lenses, of course.

All that said, it seems like I had the auto depth of field setting on some camera I owned, maybe a Rebel or S or G camera, because I think I remember trying it out. But the techniques above work well enough I really didn’t feel much need for it.
 

zim

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Oct 18, 2011
2,023
204
Had it on my old 500d don't ever recall using it, working out dof for what I generally photograph isn't exactly rocket science
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

Valvebounce

EOS R5
CR Pro
Apr 3, 2013
4,467
366
53
Isle of Wight
I never had any luck using this on my 300D, possibly because I learned to use it on my 1000Fn!
97A54E2A-63B6-4A26-8313-8AF0812BCD04.jpeg

Probably because I was trying to do it from memory instead of re-reading the manual for the 300D! :rolleyes: :ROFLMAO:
Oh well!

Cheers, Graham.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee