If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
hyperfocal settings
In article ,
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? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
hyperfocal settings
On 6/21/2013 2:00 PM, BobA wrote:
In article , 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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
hyperfocal settings
In article ,
BobA wrote: In article , 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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
hyperfocal settings
On 6/21/2013 3:16 PM, BobA wrote:
In article , BobA wrote: In article , 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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
hyperfocal settings
In article , 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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
hyperfocal settings
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
hyperfocal settings
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
hyperfocal settings
"nospam" wrote in message ... In article , 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. Didn't the Canon DSLR start out with a hyperfocal setting that morphed into the ADEP feature? Take Care, Dudley |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
hyperfocal settings
peternew wrote:
On 6/21/2013 3:16 PM, BobA wrote: In article , BobA wrote: In article , 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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
hyperfocal settings
In article , 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What next when the hyperfocal is wrong? | Dmac | 35mm Photo Equipment | 105 | June 19th 06 11:53 PM |
Hyperfocal Distances | Alan McGrath | Digital Photography | 5 | June 5th 06 11:22 PM |
Hyperfocal distance | Don | Digital Photography | 27 | December 12th 05 01:57 AM |
D70 Setting hyperfocal distance | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 16 | November 6th 04 12:44 PM |
hyperfocal distance | leo | Digital Photography | 74 | July 8th 04 12:25 AM |