hyperfocal settings

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.

.....
The problem, of course, is that most landscape settings aren't going to
yield a RAW image.

huh?

if the camera is set to raw, the result will be a raw image. they have
nothing to do with each other.

landscape mode and jpeg/raw are *completely* different options.

"nospam" wrote in message ...

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.

.....
The problem, of course, is that most landscape settings aren't going to
yield a RAW image.

huh?

if the camera is set to raw, the result will be a raw image. they have
nothing to do with each other.

landscape mode and jpeg/raw are *completely* different options.

Of course, I can only speak from my own experience (which is limited to the
lower-end EOS Rebel cams).

These cams, as far as I am aware, produce JPG image when the cam is set to
an "icon" mode, i.e. Portrait, Landscape, Action.

In order to get a RAW image, one has to use one of the "Creative Zone"
modes, i.e. aperture priority, shutter priority, manual, program and ADEP.

Regardless of what image format you select in the menu, the icon modes don't
change.

In fact, I just shot a couple of test pics, one in aperture mode and one in
portrait mode. As noted, the aperture mode pic came out in .cr2 and the
portrait mode pic was in .jpg, in spite of the fact my XSi is set to shoot
in RAW only.

Maybe its only a Canon quirk, but I "assumed" Nikon, Pentax, Sony, etc would
be similar.

Sorry if I was not correct.

Take Care,
Dudley

Dudley Hanks wrote:

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

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...

Take Care,
Dudley

yes, it isn't mentioned

D

AnthonyL wrote:

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.

Thanks for link. I didn't find it very helpful. It seemed more like
showing off the author's knowledge of optics and less like any clear advice
as to how much the outcome might be different in digital compared to film or
what in practice one ought to do to get images of maximum dof with a digital
camera. This academic approach having little connection to taking photos in
the real world seems strangely familiar..... Sigh.

D

In article ,
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
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.

But which standard of hyperfocal shall they implement? The
one "sharp at 100% view"? The one "sharp on a 4x6 print"?

Default: base it on the sensor pixel size,
but allow a menu pick for other CoCs.

On 2013-06-22 13:09:32 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
said:


FX lens on DX body is common.
You tell me the 70-200mm lenses are NOT used on crop cameras?
What's the alternative for these lenses?
Where's the crop 35mm, 50mm, 85mm lenses?

You obviously didn't look too far when you missed this:

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pro...%252F1.8G.html




--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 6/21/2013 5:15 PM, nospam wrote:
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.


Please explain.

--
PeterN

On 6/21/2013 7:06 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
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.

I was not referring to a chart, which is a PITA to use. I was talking
about focusing on about 1/3 of the distance to infinity, and focus
bracketing. If you work is critical, yu might want to try focus
stacking, winch is more often used in macro work.
As I said earlier,


--
PeterN

On 6/22/2013 8:54 PM, RichA wrote:
On Saturday, June 22, 2013 8:48:40 PM UTC-4, peterN wrote:
On 6/21/2013 7:06 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:

I was not referring to a chart, which is a PITA to use. I was talking

about focusing on about 1/3 of the distance to infinity, and focus

bracketing. If you work is critical, yu might want to try focus

stacking, winch is more often used in macro work.

As I said earlier,





--

PeterN

There is NO reason why camera companies can't incorporate a range-finder read-out in their firmware that would allow a person to know at what point DOF begins and ends and where they are (focusing) with respect to that.


Sorry for giving a practical solution to the OP

--
PeterN

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...

David Hare-Scott wrote:
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.

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?

FX lens on DX body is common.
You tell me the 70-200mm lenses are NOT used on crop cameras?
What's the alternative for these lenses?
Where's the crop 35mm, 50mm, 85mm lenses?

So obviously, this *is* common.

In fact, up to the (old) 10D there WAS no EF-S for these crop
cameras (and the 10D doesn't take EF-S lenses, only EF lenses)
so which lenses could one use except for full format EF lenses?

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?

Lenses are designed for a maximum sensor size, not for a
sensor size.

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,

Obviously.

or you might rely on the natural behaviour to view the prints from further
away.

If you shoot only bad photos noone wants to step nearer and
inspect some details.

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.

Film wasn't enlarged much, as a rule, by the usual consumer.
Those that did enlarge more and had viewers looking closer
at details couldn't use the DOF markings as is and had to
understand that.

Digital is routinely viewed at 100% and cropped.


I can see that the price and availablilty of large prints may have changed

1980: 28x28 cm: 19.90 DM (poster) (approx 20 EUR @ 2012)
2013: 30x30 cm: 3.00 EUR (poster) (Saal-Digital, a high
quality service)

Prices fall to 15% ... that's 'a tiny bit' more than "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.

The majority is no longer printed, but viewed on computer
and TV screens. That's easily 15-25" diagonally --- more for
TVs, though.

These also being interactive means people will often zoom in.

These numbers relate mainly to the
behaviour of the casual P&S and phone shooter who neither know nor care
about CoC.

P&S and phones have huge DOF. Phones mostly don't have settable
apertures, many P&S cameras don't allow setting the aperture
directly, and those that can have often only 2 or 3 stops
(from f/4 to f/8 for example (which is approx f/32 or f/44 in
full frame camera)) and are often not being used by people.

Most P&S cameras don't have DOF markings on the lens (though
a few announce DOF distances on their display --- one of
mine does, but it's a 4 MPix one and also has inbuild memory,
which should tell you the age (2004)) and I know of no phone
that has any markings.

So ... these camera types are irrelevant as to DOF markings.


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.

Those who know and care would have a good idea how far the
DOF extends for their camera, lenses and enlargement factors.
:-)

Yes, there used to be a DEP mode with Canon where you'd
auto-focus 2 distances and the camera would set the aperture
and distance to just include both according to a CoC compromise
defined by the manufacturer.


-Wolfgang

There still is, it's called ADEP.

It just works a bit differently.

Instead of focusing on two points, separately, you just make sure what you
want falls within the center cluster of focusing points. Anything with a
point on it figures into the DOF calculation.

Thus, if the center point is on the horizon, one of the top points is on a
closer cluster of leaves, and a left and right point both cover items
somewher in beetween, the camera will do its best to render everything from
the leaves to the people to the horizon in focus.

I haven't used the mode myself, so I can't vouche for how well it works,
but, in theory, it could be used for a quick hyperfocal shot.

Take Care,
Dudley