Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-03-2017, 07:33 PM   #31
dms
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: New York, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,861
I find it most useful as follows: the hyperfocal distance (H) will be the same for the same lens used, in APSC mode at one f/stop smaller than FF. For example, if you have an H value FF of 10 feet at f/5.6, then in (APSC) crop mode the lens should be set to f/8.

12-03-2017, 09:04 PM   #32
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,211
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
Yes, you are correct.
So you agree that changing the sensor size and nothing else (specifically focal length and aperture) will change the hyperfocal distance?

QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
But again, the OP's question is with FF only and cropping the shot which can be done in camera or in post. That is not going to change the hyperfocal distance.
This contradicts the above. Using the K-1 in crop mode or cropping in post is the same as replacing it with an aps-c camera. Which means the answer is "yes" for all your questions:

QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
Does the hyperfocal distance change from the uncropped vs. cropped FF? Does the DOF?
Should the OP use a chart for APS-C with 50mm in trying to determine the hyperfocal distance for FF cropped?

When comparing the DoF in your sample images, the ear looks blurrier in image #2 compared to image #1 (DoF is smaller after the crop and extra enlargement, see also the example I linked to earlier which includes a more extreme crop). When comparing #2 to #3 note that the focal point changes from the nose to the eye, so judging the DoF gets tricky, but do note that the circular blur discs in the background are rendered the same size. They should be, there's really no difference in using a FF camera and cropping it to aps-c compared to using an aps-c camera to start with (assuming all other settings stay the same).

QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
It will affect (sorry for those of you allergic to this term) circles of confusion (or if you prefer the minimum diameter of a point of light that is accepted as sharp) as that cropped sensor or cropped image will now have a less resolution resulting in larger COC.
We choose our circle of confusion based on sensor size, print size, viewing distance/acuity. When you crop a FF image down to aps-c size, the acceptable CoC becomes smaller. Hence Dofmasters values of 0.03mm and 0.02mm for FF and aps-c respectively.

If you mean the size of the blur discs gets larger (as we see in your example #1 going to #2), then yes, absolutely they get larger after the crop and furthur enlargement of your image. This also necessarily means the DoF has been reduced. Colloquially- stuff gets blurrier so less stuff falls inside the acceptable CoC. Please see the wikipedia page steve linked to, Depth of field - Wikipedia, I think its derivation and description is pretty clear.
12-03-2017, 09:46 PM   #33
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,480
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
Using the K-1 in crop mode or cropping in post is the same as replacing it with an aps-c camera. Which means the answer is "yes" for all your questions:
This also necessarily means the DoF has been reduced.
Brian, you can come to your own conclusions. I respectfully don't agree with 100% of your argument; let's leave it at that. I posted those images for members to make their own decisions. I understand that you don't agree with mine.

Just to make sure we're using the same definition for 'hyperfocal distance':
Definition 1: The hyperfocal distance is the closest distance at which a lens can be focused while keeping objects at infinity acceptably sharp.
Definition 2: The hyperfocal distance is the distance beyond which all objects are acceptably sharp, for a lens focused at infinity.
Definition 3: The hyperfocal distance is the ideal distance the lens is focused at to achieve a given range of near to far acceptable sharpness at a given focal length, aperture, and film or sensor size.

I rarely use the first two definitions because I shoot much more than just landscapes. More often, I'm in a situation where I need to know approximately what is my hyperfocal distance with a foreground at 5 feet and a background at 20 (not infinity).

Many of my digital students (with entry level digital Nikon and Canons) do not have a depth-of-field preview button. And now that zoom lenses are more common than primes, most don't have depth of field scales either. So having a depth of field table, whether printed on paper or an app on their phone, is helpful for them to understand essentially that the hyperfocal distance is not simply half way between the near and far subjects.

My examples would have been better if I was trying to show great depth of field and in both cases focusing the lens with both cameras at the same hyperfocal distance. But by using a sliver thin DOF, it showed me that the APS-C (despite being focused closer) still had greater DOF (smaller bokeh background). When cropping the FF (as asked by the OP), the hyperfocal distance doesn't change....but the apparent DOF does if viewed or printed at the same size.
12-03-2017, 10:36 PM   #34
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,211
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
Just to make sure we're using the same definition for 'hyperfocal distance':
Definition 1: The hyperfocal distance is the closest distance at which a lens can be focused while keeping objects at infinity acceptably sharp.
Definition 2: The hyperfocal distance is the distance beyond which all objects are acceptably sharp, for a lens focused at infinity.
Definition 3: The hyperfocal distance is the ideal distance the lens is focused at to achieve a given range of near to far acceptable sharpness at a given focal length, aperture, and film or sensor size.

I rarely use the first two definitions because I shoot much more than just landscapes. More often, I'm in a situation where I need to know approximately what is my hyperfocal distance with a foreground at 5 feet and a background at 20 (not infinity).
Definition 1 is the more standard one, but 2 also works. Neither changes my answer. With these 2 versions do you agree that the hyperfocal distance changes with the sensor size (assuming everything else remains the same)?

I've never seen 3 called hyperfocal distance before, and this is probably a big source of disagreement here. Do you have any references that use the term this way?

QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
But by using a sliver thin DOF, it showed me that the APS-C (despite being focused closer) still had greater DOF (smaller bokeh background).
I tried matching and measuring the out of focus blobs in images #2 and #3. These seem the same size to me or at least close enough to be within reasonable human hand-holding error. Do you have a lens with a tripod collar? Can you repeat the test with a few out of focus lights where the lens absolutely does not move? Or send me a K-1 and I'll be happy to do it and post the results here. To be clear, I am asserting that shooting in FF mode and cropping to aps-c will give the same result as shooting straight from an aps-c camera. If you agree with this, then we're good. If you don't care anymore, we're also good.

12-03-2017, 11:11 PM   #35
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,313
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
Just to make sure we're using the same definition for 'hyperfocal distance':
Definition 1: The hyperfocal distance is the closest distance at which a lens can be focused while keeping objects at infinity acceptably sharp.
Definition 2: The hyperfocal distance is the distance beyond which all objects are acceptably sharp, for a lens focused at infinity.
Definition 3: The hyperfocal distance is the ideal distance the lens is focused at to achieve a given range of near to far acceptable sharpness at a given focal length, aperture, and film or sensor size.

Hyperfocal distance always involves the infinity distance as the far focus. Are you assuming infinity focus in #3, as "far", or is it any arbitrary distance you want focused in the photo (which is not really hyperlocal distance, just regular DOF-priority photography). Also, any definition of a hyperfocal distance has to have an associated aperture as well as film or sensor size; why do you only mention it in #3 and not #1 and #2?

Last edited by leekil; 12-03-2017 at 11:17 PM.
12-04-2017, 12:41 AM   #36
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,480
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
Definition 1 is the more standard one, but 2 also works. Neither changes my answer. With these 2 versions do you agree that the hyperfocal distance changes with the sensor size (assuming everything else remains the same)?
Yes.

QuoteQuote:
I've never seen 3 called hyperfocal distance before, and this is probably a big source of disagreement here. Do you have any references that use the term this way?
When I was working in Hollywood (pre-internet) our bible was the American Cinematographer's Manual that has dozens of tables and charts including DOF tables with near and far distances based on the hyperfocal distance. Nowadays, it's far cheaper and easier to use an app such as those produced by dofmaster.com. On their tables, which I've found to be accurate, the far left column indicates the hyperfocal distance. Of course at smaller apertures, smaller formats, and smaller focal lengths, infinity is shown in the "far" column, but with larger apertures, larger formats, and longer focal lengths, the far range includes distances other than infinity.

This term for hyperfocal distance was also used (in English) at UCLA, Art Center(Europe) College of Design, and the International Academy of Broadcasting in Montreux, Switzerland.

So in using my earlier example of trying to get 5 feet to 20 feet in acceptable sharpness at 50mm with a FF, with f/22, you can get everything between 4'10" to 22'9" in acceptable sharpness. The distance that you must focus at to achieve this is 8'. In definition 3, the hyperfocal distance for that situation is 8'.

If we wanted to know the hyperfocal distance based on FF, 50mm, @f/22 for definition 1 & 2, then it's 12'3", but that's useless info if I don't care about infinity. I've had the privilege of working for some highly talented cinematographers which includes John Alcott and Laszlo Kovacs. What I was taught regarding T/stops and optical theory at UCLA film school was applied by them and they referred to it as 'hyperfocal distance' on studio sets where infinity didn't exist.

QuoteQuote:
I tried matching and measuring the out of focus blobs in images #2 and #3. These seem the same size to me or at least close enough to be within reasonable human hand-holding error. Do you have a lens with a tripod collar? Can you repeat the test with a few out of focus lights where the lens absolutely does not move? Or send me a K-1 and I'll be happy to do it and post the results here. To be clear, I am asserting that shooting in FF mode and cropping to aps-c will give the same result as shooting straight from an aps-c camera. If you agree with this, then we're good. If you don't care anymore, we're also good.
These were shot on a tripod (that wasn't moved), and if the distances changed, it was only because the subject leaned an inch or two closer or away from approximately 8 feet distance. I intentionally moved her from a chair with wheels to one without. At the time, I didn't have a K-1 available, so as mentioned before, I used a Nikon FF and APS-C.

I perceive that the FF bokeh is larger in the background yet her ear is less sharp in the foreground compared to the APS-C bokeh which is smaller and her ear in the foreground is sharper. It's the same sort of difference I've seen in my own bokeh tests comparing a 50mm f/1.8 vs. f/1.4.

I understand your assertion that shooting in FF mode and crop frame to aps-c will give the same results as shooting straight with an aps-c sensor, but that isn't the results I see when I did this.

No worries, I'm "good" with you. I do care, but I also want others to have their space to share their own observations and understandings. For now, aloha.
12-04-2017, 04:56 AM   #37
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15
Original Poster
I have taken test photos for comparison, but not yet analysed them on PC. Preliminary views (back of the camera) don't bode well for focus at infinity (soft at best) regardless of how I calculate the focus point. Using HF app a typical value would be 5.4ft or 8 ft (K1 and K5 respectively) for a 28mm lens at f/16. Near point focus appears acceptable but not far point! I suspected this tread would throw up differing opinions ok! It's a Pentax problem as other camera manufacturers of course have separate lens series for APSC and FF. The information I need is really where to focus when sizing up a landscape. I favour manual focus (or maybe I would have left Pentax a long time ago!).
12-04-2017, 06:21 AM   #38
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,211
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
Yes.
Golden!

QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
When I was working in Hollywood (pre-internet) our bible was the American Cinematographer's Manual that has dozens of tables and charts including DOF tables with near and far distances based on the hyperfocal distance.
Thanks for your history. I can honestly never remember seeing 'hyperfocal' used to refer to a setup without infinity involved in some way, so this is handy to know. I'll keep my eyes open for a copy of this book, older editions look cheap on flea bay.

A follow up question, have you ever seen hyperfocal used this way outside cinematography? Were all your classes cinema based?

QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
These were shot on a tripod (that wasn't moved), and if the distances changed, it was only because the subject leaned an inch or two closer or away from approximately 8 feet distance.
I'm suggesting the lens mounted to a rock solid tripod as some shifting has occurred between the aps-c and ff images (this is clearly visible in the angle of the brown line across the wall). It's really tough to accurately measure the blur discs as this small shift has completely changed some from being round to cat's eyes, their edges are also...blurry. There is very little difference in aps-c and ff as it is, everything really needs to be held as constant as possible to be definitive.

QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
No worries, I'm "good" with you. I do care, but I also want others to have their space to share their own observations and understandings. For now, aloha.
It was late, "care" may have been glib on my part, sorry! I was also willing to call it a day if you wanted to, but I've learned something new, so it's been useful to me. Cheers

12-04-2017, 06:43 AM - 3 Likes   #39
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,132
I don't really use any of this stuff. Back in film days with an aperture ring and DoF scale I used it extensively, I found (and most studio guys did) hyperlocal focussing produced better images. These days I look for something in my frame that I can point the AF at, to give me an approximate hyperlocal optimum focus point.

But for DoF, I use ƒ5.6 on APS-c or ƒ8 on FF. That gives me approximately the same DoF for the same image..

SO that would mean like a 50mm on FF and a 35mm of APS-c. That's where the increased DoF comes from. You have to use a wider lens to get the same image and the wider the lens, the wider the DoF,

Practically, that's pretty much all I care about. I start from ƒ8 FF or ƒ5.6 APS-c. Experience has taught me that for a specific image, I'm going to want more or less DoF. SO starting from those points I I crank up to as high as ƒ22 on FF or ƒ16 on APS-c which with a 50mm FF or 35mm APS-c lens will give you approximately the same image, and keep everything in acceptable focus from 6 feet to infinity.

You can work everything out from there. And it still pays to "cheat".

On this image I use ƒ8. I know from the DoF guide on my FA 50, that at ƒ8 on FF everything from about 12 feet to infinity will be in focus. So in the image below I focussed on the end of the dock, to set my hyerfocal point made sure the start of the images was at least 15 feet away from me, and kept the whole image sharp, with out getting crossing the diffraction limit and experiencing consequent image degradation. The practice is a lot less complicate than the theory. And it's all done instantly in my head.



The only thing you have to know here is how each camera you own performs.

Practical knowledge of how to use it is the only thing that matters. A bunch of theories and calculations mean next to nothing.
But if you shoot FF and APS_c you do have to know your starting points (50mm ƒ8 FF and 35mm ƒ5.6 APS-c and those are derived using the point at which the lens sharpness starts to be limited by diffraction. After that it's all relative, and approximate values can be determined by "rule of thumb."

For a landscape artist, working mostly with infinity, what you need to know at each ƒ-stop is with infinity set at the farthest end of the DoF, how close can be in acceptable focus at the front end.

On FF and ƒ22 it's 6 feet. At ƒ8 it's 12-15 feet. What else do you need to know?

For a photographer, the little question is "how does this work". The big question is "how do I incorporate this information into my work flow?" Understanding optics is not the same as understanding photography.

The big lesson in the above pictures is, if I'd focussed on the trees on the other side of the river, the front edge of the docks would have been out of focus. Focussing on the end of the dock kept everything in focus. You can understand that looking at the DoF scale on your FA 50 1.5. Newer enthusiasts might want to pick up a lens with a DoF scale just to get a sense of it.

I learned to do this by being taught how to use the DoF scale. I've never seen a paper DoF table in my whole life, and never needed to. It is so much easier than looking at a bunch of tables and numbers and much more intuitive.

Last edited by normhead; 12-04-2017 at 07:28 AM.
12-04-2017, 07:32 AM   #40
Pentaxian
MJKoski's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,330
Hyperfocal with digital is a total failure. Even more so with advanced features like pixel shift. Every photo which contains a subject contains something which to focus on. Human cannot look at 123 things at the same time. So focus on something at let everything else blur out or fade softly away with small enough aperture.

Or, better, use camera movements.

Or, use focus stacking to combat diffraction AND get huge DoF.
12-04-2017, 08:08 AM - 2 Likes   #41
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,132
QuoteOriginally posted by MJKoski Quote
Hyperfocal with digital is a total failure. Even more so with advanced features like pixel shift. Every photo which contains a subject contains something which to focus on. Human cannot look at 123 things at the same time. So focus on something at let everything else blur out or fade softly away with small enough aperture.

Or, better, use camera movements.

Or, use focus stacking to combat diffraction AND get huge DoF.
It doesn't sound like you have a whole lot of experience with hyperlocal focussing. Read the above, I explained how I use it, and I use it in almost every landscape image. Why would you go to focus stacking when you can get acceptably sharp images without the bother? I guess some folks would rather spend time fussing with a computer instead of learning to do a half second calculation in their head using hyerfocal based technique.

Stacking is for macros, or images less than 6 feet from the camera, where you can't develop enough DoF using hyperlocal settings to keep as much of the image as you want in focus.

Rather than say stuff like "Hyperfocal with digital is a total failure." you should just admit you don't know how to use hyperfocal technique and ask for some advice. Your opinion that its useless in digital reflects a personal attitude, one that says, no one knows more than you do and that makes you qualified to tell everyone else, even those who use hyperlocal on digital, that what they do doesn't work.

Your ignorance of how to make hyperlocal work for you as a concept, doesn't change anything, but our perception of you.

I rarely take advice that essentially says "Do more work to get the same thing." At ƒ8, my landscapes are sharp in focus from 15 feet to infinity and I can just snap a picture without a tripod taking advantage of in camera SR with even my oldest lenses. My perspective would be the modern technical solutions used to avoid learning a very simple technique all waste your time. On landscapes you get nothing extra for all your effort.

Last edited by normhead; 12-04-2017 at 08:24 AM.
12-04-2017, 08:46 AM - 2 Likes   #42
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,411
QuoteOriginally posted by MJKoski Quote
Hyperfocal with digital is a total failure. Even more so with advanced features like pixel shift. Every photo which contains a subject contains something which to focus on. Human cannot look at 123 things at the same time. So focus on something at let everything else blur out or fade softly away with small enough aperture.

Or, better, use camera movements.

Or, use focus stacking to combat diffraction AND get huge DoF.
Obviously people have different esthetic tastes but I, for one, love a photo with 123 in-focus things to look at. The best landscape images aren't one tree in focus in a sea of blur but thousands of trees, bushes, flowers, animals, cliffs, rocks, waves, water, etc. all in sharp focus.

Photos with one thing in focus make for nice at-a-glance snapshots on instagram but the best images to my eye are those with so much detail than one can spend hours roving over the scene and finding new detail in every location.

Hyperfocal with digital is no different from hyperfocal with fine-grain film. It's a matter of understanding the acceptable diameter of the blur circle (which does differ for different sensors, pixelshift, output sizes, etc.) and then turning the crank on a simple equation or knowing, as normhead does, the basic rules of thumb for DoF.
12-04-2017, 09:20 AM   #43
Pentaxian
MJKoski's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,330
Focus stacking is the great way to make use of modern lens designs when hunting for maximum sharpness where it is wanted (those 123 things AND more...) Pixel Shift is perfect example why exact focusing is needed - it enhances the detail at some exact point of focus, nothing else. You want most details out of PS landscape image, you take enough number of PS images at different focusing distances and stack them. It is not hard to do after carefully focused stack of images, there are few excellent tools for that - Helicon and Zerene for example.

Digital image is binary world technically, something is sharp or not. 1 or 0. Analog sharpness does not exist, on light table I see sharpish details with a loupe when examining 4x5" film but never digital like absolute pin sharp 1:1 details. And when those details go to wrong place or are attained via stopping down too far digital image loses its pop. With K-1 this happens after f/8 more or less.

Nikon even introduces automated focus stacking in D850 to make this easier. One can use it for everything these days as software has developed quite a bit when handling movement in the scene. 90% of my digital landscapes have been focus stacked for last two years or so. DoF scales on most modern lenses are printed on the barrel as a joke. They are not accurate on Zeiss lenses, Samyangs (lol) or Pentax lenses to name but a few. They do not take into account field curvature of the lens design which is more important to understand than this ages old semi-accurate mechanism. If I for some reason want "sharp" images quickly I use my cellphone camera.

Hyperfocal focusing is guaranteed way to never achieve 100% what you setup is capable of. Advanced user with m4/3 system and capable optics is able to outresolve the work of lazy FF user very very easily from technical PoV.
12-04-2017, 09:39 AM   #44
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,132
QuoteOriginally posted by MJKoski Quote
Focus stacking is the great way to make use of modern lens designs when hunting for maximum sharpness where it is wanted (those 123 things AND more...)
Ok, exactly when would that be?

QuoteQuote:
Hyperfocal focusing is guaranteed way to never achieve 100% what you setup is capable of. Advanced user with m4/3 system and capable optics is able to outresolve the work of lazy FF user very very easily from technical PoV.
Prove it. I don't believe you. I just think you don't know what you're talking about. But if you can show me you know how to use hyperlocal techniques and you can get a better images with focus stacking on 4/3, than you can get using hyerfocal and pixel shift, I'll change my mind.

You're making some pretty outrageous claims there. And, you might want to check out this video before you start going on about what great images you get with your D850. A lot of people have been conned.

12-04-2017, 10:45 AM - 1 Like   #45
Pentaxian
MJKoski's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,330
Send me OM-D mk2 and 75mm/1.8 Zuiko. I will be happy to show how it works wide open focus stacked against stopped down K-1 and 70-200 f/2.8 SDM AW (send these too). Olympus has its own PS mode too :]

Here is something to read for starters:
https://diglloyd.com/blog/2017/20171114_0955-significance-of-focus-stacking.html
https://diglloyd.com/blog/2017/20171029_0001-focus-stacking-Sigma14f1_8A-BoulderField.html

--

Here is practical example what focus stacking does with wide angle landscape photo.

Whole image as result:



100% unsharpened crop of dead swan's eye from full res image:


100% unsharpened crop from swan's wing feathers:


And finally, 100% crop from that far away island:


In the final image there are 9 frames starting from Loxia 21mm lens' minimum focusing distance all the way to infinity. You see, I get SHARP details from 25cm (Lox 21mm MFD) to infinity @ f/8. No way this would have been possible with conventional stopping down, not even f/256 would have worked (total diffraction mess). Canon 24mm TS-E mk2 could work but it is on the edge requiring huge tilt and thus dropping its resolving power considerably. I could have taken this with m4/3 and 75mm lens far away and by using focus stacking it would absolutely demolish stopped down FF setup with 150mm lens. This method is absolutely available to anyone, from beginner kits to $$$$$ setups. Fun things is, K-70 with kit lens will trash K-1 with 24-70 this way and anyone can do it. But those having K-1 and high IQ lenses can also use this. And why should they NOT? Live and learn.

Last edited by MJKoski; 12-04-2017 at 11:35 AM. Reason: Real world example of focus stacking with wide angle lens
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aps-c, apsc, blur, camera, crop, distance, distance in apsc, dof, dslr, ff, focus, frame, full frame, full-frame, infinity, k-1, k1, k1 hyperfocal apsc, lens, light, pentax k-1, photo, print, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
using hyperfocal distance HFD Steve Belcoski General Photography 4 09-02-2016 08:37 AM
Hyperfocal Distance/Focusing Question menappi Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 18 03-18-2014 03:32 PM
Hyperfocal Distance Chart for 645D uintaangler Pentax Medium Format 5 05-01-2013 09:04 AM
Hyperfocal Distance....i still can't "get" it. maconmatt Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 29 09-07-2009 08:33 AM
Hyperfocal distance regken Pentax DSLR Discussion 16 03-26-2007 05:29 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:41 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top