[pacerr]

Here's a useful (and readable) reference:

Hyperfocal Distance

And there's others if you google "calculate hyperfocal distance".


H2

[stevewig]

Here's a useful (and readable) reference:

Hyperfocal Distance

And there's others if you google "calculate hyperfocal distance".


H2

Thank you!
I am very familiar with this subject (and what is the hyperfocal distance). My interest is in how much people actually use this concept and the value that they place in its use.

[pacerr]

I am very familiar with this subject...

I assumed so from the wording of your post(s).

My intent was to throw out a reference marker for some of the less experienced folks that lurk in the background as this theme comes up fairly often at that level and the permanent articles don't get much attention.

Sorry I hijacked your thread.

H2

[stevewig]

Not at all your comments were and are very welcome.

[adwb]

I read and re-read several times this article, and bottom line if you try the infinity focus method you get results that are often better from a front to back focus point.
so to answer the posts question mostly use infinity focus method.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ILIM/courses/vision-sensors/readings/TIAOOFe.pdf
regards
Alistair

[stevewig]

I read and re-read several times this article, and bottom line if you try the infinity focus method you get results that are often better from a front to back focus point.
so to answer the posts question mostly use infinity focus method.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ILIM/courses/vision-sensors/readings/TIAOOFe.pdf
regards
Alistair

H'mmmm............ very interesting article - thank you!

[Marc Sabatella]

Since there havnt been too many direct answers to the OP, I'll chime in:

I virtually never use the concept directly. I'm too much of a pixel peeper to accept the relatively low degree of sharpness that exists throughout much of the "zone of allegedly acceptable sharpness" as predicted by DOF / hyperfocal calculations. I'd usually rather designate one "focal point" in the image to be maximally sharp and focus there directly, even if this means my DOF as measured by a DOF calculation isn't maximally deep. I do this despite knowing full well I'm often being too picky about sharpness for my own good. Although I would say that some of this feeling also comes from my experience as a landscape *painter*, where I generally take the same approach. In fact, we usually rely on deliberately making the far distance background a little softer (and cooler, and less saturated, and lower contrast) to help create the illusion of depth.

---

Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 07-05-2010 at 09:44 AM.

[stevewig]

Thanks Marc appreciate the insight!

[LensScribe]

I was quite interested in hyperfocal lengths for a while, but in practical use have found I only use it on an old 17/f4 Takumar. It's wide and DOF is so large anyway that lining up the red hyperfocal markers (f8 and 1.1m/4ft) really does turn it into a point-and-shoot. My attempts with anything longer haven't given me reason to try again, although I imagine you could get away with it with a 28mm (especially on a film body) as long as you didn't need anything too close to be in focus.

Here's an example with the 17mm. I casually dangled my camera between the escalator railings pointing behind me:

K200D; S-M-C Takumar 17/f4 FE

[SpecialK]

Here's an example with the 17mm. I casually dangled my camera between the escalator railings pointing behind me:

That is awesome.

[LensScribe]

That is awesome.

Thanks. Good luck rather than good management really. AF.C, hyperfocal, and a lot of hoping are what I have to thank.

[RioRico]

Por mi dos centavos, a handy ROT (rule of thumb): Hyperfocal focusing is difficult with lenses longer than "long normal", which on our dSLRs is around 35mm, and fairly easy with old manual lenses with aperture+distance marks. Here's how:

1) Set the aperture to the desired f-stop, preferably in the f/5.6-f/16 range.
2) Set the far distance mark at least 1.5 stops DOWN from that aperture mark.
3) Set the camera to Manual Focus (MF, not AF.C or AF.S.) Smile and shoot.

For example: You have a 35mm lens on your K7 or whatever. You want infinity to appear sharp. You've set the aperture to f/11. Now set the focus so the infinity mark is a bit below the f/8 mark. On my Super-Tak 35/3.5, that means the hyperfocal distance is 20 feet and the sharpness zone is 10 feet to infinity. Or with my K20D mounting a Lentar (Tokina) 21mm lens, with aperture at f/11 and infinity just below the f/8 mark, hyperfocal distance is 2m and the sharpness zone is 1m to infinity.

As Marc said, many landscapes and similar subjects look more 'real' if infinity is softer. So, pick a zone of sharpness you're interested in, and nudge the focus down accordingly. Maybe you're shooting stuff outdoors within a few arms' lengths. With that 35mm lens at f/16, set the focus (hyperfocal distance) to just under 6 feet and look at the f/11 marks -- the zone of sharpness is from just over 4 feet to just over 12 feet. With the 21mm lens at f/16 and focus set to 1m, the f/11 marks show that the sharpness zone is from a bit under 0.6m out to almost 5m. Good for close encounters, eh?