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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
hyperfocal settings
"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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
hyperfocal settings
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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
hyperfocal settings
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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
hyperfocal settings
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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
hyperfocal settings
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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
hyperfocal settings
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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
hyperfocal settings
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 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
hyperfocal settings
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 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
hyperfocal settings
"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 |
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 |