All right. Lets take Pentax K1 with lens at 20mm (e.g D-FA 15-30 @ 20mm).
- Lens: FL 20mm, Aperture f/5.6
- Hyperfocal distance = 8.124 ft
Nearest point in acceptable focus distance vs focus distance
- Focus at 1 ft : near focus = 0.896 ft ; far focus = 1.131 ft
- Focus at 5 ft : near focus = 3.101 ft ; far focus = 12.898 ft
- Focus at 10 ft : near focus = 4.479 ft ; far focus = infinity in theory (
but practically the background is not sharp...)
- Focus at 20 ft: near focus = 5.757 ft ; far focus = infinity in theory (
but practically the background is not sharp...)
- Focus at 100 ft: near focus = 7.462 ft ; far focus = infinity ; here the focus point distance was multiplied by 500% (20 ft x 5 = 100 ft) but the near focus distance only increased < 30%
- Focus at 1000 ft: near focus = 7.994 ft ; far focus = infinity ; the focus distance was multiplied by 10 (1000% increase) but the near focus distance only increased a little, and now let say at 1000 ft is a mountain the whole mountainairy background area in the image frame is tack sharp and with lost only a few feet of acceptable focus in the foreground.
It is a lot more simple to have the lens focused at infinity, lose a little distance of sharpness in the foreground and have the whole remaining part of the image tack sharp. There is also a video from Thomas Heaton (See minute 9 here:
), and he says that he tried with his camera the hyperfocal distance thing and he found that hyperfocal didn't work for him and focusing at the farther distance in the landscape was giving him the best results.