[AggieDad]

I am curious if anyone is using hyper-focal distance when taking landscape and/or panoramas images. If so, how are you determining where to focus your camera?

At the moment I typically focus my panos for infinity. But I am considering adding a hyper-focal distance calculator to my automated panorama head. I thought it would be a neat addition. Since I already input the lens focal length as part of the pano calculations, all I need to add is the aperture and the software will return a hyper-focal distance.

What I don't know is this: will it be useful? Will I use it?

I would appreciate all thoughts, opinions, and comments.

[UncleVanya]

I don’t have a strong opinion but this article seems relevant.

https://photographylife.com/why-hyperfocal-distance-charts-are-wrong

[Bob 256]

Good article UncleVanya! When's the last time anyone has used a lens focusing scale, much less the hyperfocal estimation part of it? I do a lot of landscape photography and much of the time, I find my focus being at infinity (and the lens focus is determined by my AF system - not the lens scale or the infinity end stop) using the best stop for IQ. If I need foreground details in the shot, I usually come close to what is suggested in this article and focus beyond those near objects (about twice the distance) and stop down. I have to realize I will be sacrificing some sharpness at infinity and some at the near object but it has to be a compromise to get the shot (and there will be sacrifices due to diffraction at the smaller f-stop for everything).

When I go for the infinity focus, most if not all of the subject matter is far away and I'll get the sharpest rendition with very little compromise. So in the end, I guess it's a compromise between better IQ and compromised IQ depending on what you need to capture and how much unsharpness you're willing to accept. Photography is almost always compromise. That's one advantage to digital - you can click away with various settings and probably come away with a winner, whereas film cost might make your shutter finger ache doing the same.

[biz-engineer]

What I don't know is this: will it be useful? Will I use it?I would appreciate all thoughts, opinions, and comments.

If you include such calculator to your Pano head, simply use the classic formula but tie it to the condition CoC = 2 x pixel pitch (micro meter) = f-number. For example: CoC = 0.010 (camera sensor having 5um wide pixels) with lens aperture set to f/10. It works pretty well in practice because f# = 2 x pixel pitch is generally the f# where diffraction blur becomes visible when stopping down the lens, meaning that stopping down further increase apparent DoF but decrease overall image resolution.

[AggieDad]

@biz-engineer: I am planning to use the standard formula of

H = ((f^2) /Nc) + f
where: H is hyperfocal distance; f is focal length in mm; N is aperture; and c is circle of confusion.

Based on my reading, I have a value for the CoC of 0.023, but as you know there are other values that have been discussed.

If you include such calculator to your Pano head, simply use the classic formula but tie it to the condition CoC = 2 x pixel pitch (micro meter) = f-number. For example: CoC = 0.010 (camera sensor having 5um wide pixels) with lens aperture set to f/10. It works pretty well in practice because f# = 2 x pixel pitch is generally the f# where diffraction blur becomes visible when stopping down the lens, meaning that stopping down further increase apparent DoF but decrease overall image resolution.

My K-3 ii apparently has a pixel pitch of ~3.9um. If I understand you, that would give me a CoC value of 0.0078 and a default aperture of f/8.

This gives me other things to think about.

[GUB]

@biz-engineer: I am planning to use the standard formula of

H = ((f^2) /Nc) + f
where: H is hyperfocal distance; f is focal length in mm; N is aperture; and c is circle of confusion.

Based on my reading, I have a value for the CoC of 0.023, but as you know there are other values that have been discussed.



My K-3 ii apparently has a pixel pitch of ~3.9um. If I understand you, that would give me a CoC value of 0.0078 and a default aperture of f/8.

This gives me other things to think about.

This is about the moment you realise that the "accepted" coc for full frame of .03mm means a blur covering 27 pixels is "acceptably sharp"

[womble]

As someone using manual lenses on film cameras often having no focusing aid, I use the scale on lenses frequently. Many of my folders have a red dot on the focus ring and another on the aperture ring to indicate how to get the majority of the image sharp. Even with 35mm I'll set the infinity mark to the set aperture on the focus ring to maximise depth of field.

[gofour3]

As someone using manual lenses on film cameras often having no focusing aid, I use the scale on lenses frequently. Many of my folders have a red dot on the focus ring and another on the aperture ring to indicate how to get the majority of the image sharp. Even with 35mm I'll set the infinity mark to the set aperture on the focus ring to maximise depth of field.

Yep a piece of cake using a Pentax manual focus lens.

Phil.

[steephill]

The red mark on the focus ring on Pentax lenses is to adjust focus for IR, it is nothing to do with hyperfocal technique. There is a hyperfocal scale on the lenses to make it easier to try that method but it is not very useful these days with high resolution sensors and 100% pixel peeping on screens.

[Bbsteinle]

I have three Zeiss Ikon cameras that use their famous “red dot system” for setting hyper-focal distance.

[From1980]

As someone using manual lenses on film cameras often having no focusing aid, I use the scale on lenses frequently. Many of my folders have a red dot on the focus ring and another on the aperture ring to indicate how to get the majority of the image sharp. Even with 35mm I'll set the infinity mark to the set aperture on the focus ring to maximise depth of field.

This was always the method I used for film (and still do) and now also for digital since I'm inclined to use my older manual prime lenses whenever shooting outdoors and landscapes. Added bonus with these beautifully made older lenses: infinity mark was always infinity focus too. If your lens needed adjustments to focus properly then you returned it because that was out of spec.
As has been said though, it doesn't pay to stop all the way down and have diffraction problems. My preference is to keep the aperture at least one stop from minimum and set that infinity focus mark for the next widest f/stop than I'm setting for a safety margin. That narrows depth of field a little but gets acceptable sharpness without worry.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I find where, how to focus how much to stop down is highly dependent on the lens being used, the orientation of the camera, the focal length being used and how close the nearest subject is to the camera.

I have lenses that work very will for images with great DOF and how I focus them can very greatly, for some lens I like to focus using the outer portion of the frame in LV on as target that can vary depending on the closet subject in the frame.
For some lens this can be as near as 20m away and for others this can be 100 +m away.

For the best I would recommend trial and error and making a log book that you can quickly look up what you find works best in the past.

---------- Post added 10-09-2021 at 08:13 PM ----------

I find where, how to focus how much to stop down is highly dependent on the lens being used, the orientation of the camera, the focal length being used and how close the nearest subject is to the camera.

I have lenses that work very will for images with great DOF and how I focus them can very greatly, for some lens I like to focus using the outer portion of the frame in LV on as target that can vary depending on the closet subject in the frame.
For some lens this can be as near as 20m away and for others this can be 100 +m away.

For the best I would recommend trial and error and making a log book that you can quickly look up what you find works best in the past.

[biz-engineer]

This is about the moment you realise that the "accepted" coc for full frame of .03mm means a blur covering 27 pixels is "acceptably sharp"

That is the problem is classic DoF calculators being based on the goal of producing an acceptably sharp 8"x12" enlargement from a 35 film exposure. When I print, 24"x36", CoC of 28um is clearly too large.
I've found that for a bayer CFA type sensor, a two pixels wide CoC is realistic value (both conceptually, and what I could observe).

[BarryE]

I am curious if anyone is using hyper-focal distance when taking landscape and/or panoramas images. If so, how are you determining where to focus your camera?

At the moment I typically focus my panos for infinity. But I am considering adding a hyper-focal distance calculator to my automated panorama head. I thought it would be a neat addition. Since I already input the lens focal length as part of the pano calculations, all I need to add is the aperture and the software will return a hyper-focal distance.

What I don't know is this: will it be useful? Will I use it?

I would appreciate all thoughts, opinions, and comments.

No. Never have. For a long while I've been manual focussing and at narrow apertures and wide or wide(ish) I just pick an object that's some way in the frame, but NOT at infinity. This way pretty much everything is in focus. If I'm unsure, I bracket the focus. I used this technique when I auto focussed to, but concluded it was too slow adjusting the focus point, so went manual - so much easier, especially with a loupe.

[womble]

The red mark on the focus ring on Pentax lenses is to adjust focus for IR, it is nothing to do with hyperfocal technique. There is a hyperfocal scale on the lenses to make it easier to try that method but it is not very useful these days with high resolution sensors and 100% pixel peeping on screens.

I said the red mark on my folding cameras, not my Pentax lenses. I use the red IR mark too, when shooting IR film.