Q: Infinity focus being nothing of the sort

I have owned a few conpact digital cameras and I have been left with
the impression that the infinity focus setting is nothing of the sort
and is more like 30 feet. Has a study been done about this that I could
link to?

wrote:
I have owned a few conpact digital cameras and I have been left with
the impression that the infinity focus setting is nothing of the sort
and is more like 30 feet.

With "reasonable" DOF, that oughta' do it.

They may be trying to exploit the "box brownie" effect.

"Hyperfocal distance" and all that jazz.

BugBear

wrote in message
oups.com...
I have owned a few conpact digital cameras and I have been left with
the impression that the infinity focus setting is nothing of the sort
and is more like 30 feet. Has a study been done about this that I could
link to?


Hi.

Have you just noticed.

This has been going on for years with P & S cameras, especially at the
cheaper end. The Autofocus might only have 3 steps, 30, 15 & 8 ft. The 30
ft setting might well be at the near limit of the lens travel, so that
actually means only 2 steps. They rely upon the wide DoF with a small focal
length, and aperture to ensure sharpness.

The more expensive the Camera the more steps. One of the UK Mags used to
include the number of steps in their Camera Listings.

Some of the Film P & S had a drilled plastic plate, which put a larger or
smaller hole behind the lens according to the ISO selection lever, and only
had a 1 speed shutter, and I am not just talking about cameras from Eastern
Europe or with unheard of names.

The Makers have a pretty low opinion of the average persons knowledge of
photography, and know that any lack of sharpness at infinity will probably
never be noticed. How many of the general public ever take pictures of
anything except people, or objects in the near to middle distance.

Having worked at reception in a Camera Repairer, I was horrified at what
most people would accept as a good quality photograph.

I know that when I sometimes had cause to complain to a Photo Printing Shop,
( I nearly said Lab ), the explanations I got were often ludicrous. They
only try it on with that sort of rubbish, because they know Joe Public does
not have a clue.

I can not believe that any of this will have changed, just because most
people use digital, which is even more technical than film.

Roy G

Roy G wrote:
...
The Makers have a pretty low opinion of the average persons knowledge
of photography,..

And they are right. :-)

It should be noted that the average person posting to this NG is not the
average person.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
Roy G wrote:
..
The Makers have a pretty low opinion of the average persons knowledge
of photography,..

And they are right. :-)

It should be noted that the average person posting to this NG is not
the average person.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
True enough Joseph. If you read some of the rubbish which was being spouted
on "best compact digital tested" on 29th June, you might think there is not
that much difference. Could it be a little knowledge is worse than none.

Roy G

wrote in message
oups.com...
I have owned a few conpact digital cameras and I have been left with
the impression that the infinity focus setting is nothing of the sort
and is more like 30 feet. Has a study been done about this that I could
link to?


Depending upon the lens's actual focal length, 30 feet might be at or beyond
infinity for that lens.

Ken Burns wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
I have owned a few conpact digital cameras and I have been left with
the impression that the infinity focus setting is nothing of the sort
and is more like 30 feet. Has a study been done about this that I
could link to?


Depending upon the lens's actual focal length, 30 feet might be at or
beyond infinity for that lens.

Too infinity and beyond!!!

It would not be dependent on the lens's focal length, but maybe beyond
its focusing capability. BTW I know of no way 30 feet can ever be beyond
infinity. :-)

Actually everything you intended does make sense and I think most
everyone would read it in the way you intended. Which is a good thing for
me, considering how often I make like errors.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

wrote:
I have owned a few conpact digital cameras and I have been left with
the impression that the infinity focus setting is nothing of the sort
and is more like 30 feet. Has a study been done about this that I could
link to?
Most of my cameras well focus past infinity and very few have a good
setting at infinity.
The one that seems to do the best at setting to infinity is in fact a
pretty cheap point and shoot.

Inexpensive zoom lenses on DSLR rarely are going to have one setting
for infinity that works across the zoom range.
A fixed focal length lens will have a much better chance, or a high-end
zoom lens.

Scott

wrote in message
oups.com...

Ken Burns wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
I have owned a few conpact digital cameras and I have been left with
the impression that the infinity focus setting is nothing of the sort
and is more like 30 feet. Has a study been done about this that I could
link to?


Depending upon the lens's actual focal length, 30 feet might be at or
beyond
infinity for that lens.

Jesus wept! Are things that bad now when it comes to knowledge about
photography?


I'm sorry that I don't understand your reply. Could you please explain?

wrote:
I have owned a few conpact digital cameras and I have been left with
the impression that the infinity focus setting is nothing of the sort
and is more like 30 feet. Has a study been done about this that I could
link to?


There is some point in which the focus will go no farther towards the
long range. This point, depending on the lens setup occurs in the range
of 30 to 50 feet, and at that point, there is no further lens movement
from there to infinity. Does that clear up the point?