Employing Hyperfocal Settings With AF Camera?

<p>How does one make use of hyperfocal settings with an AF system? Many AF and AF zoom lenses have no scale markers, so switching to manual focus wouldn't seem to help.</p>

<p>I suppose if you had the hyperfocal length calculation done, you could focus on something at that distance, then turn it to manual focus</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dofmaster.com/hyperfocal.html#focusing">http://www.dofmaster.com/hyperfocal.html#focusing</a></p>

<p>This was just discussed recently. And the conclusion was the same as your own. When a lens lacks proper DoF and distance scales,there is no way to accurately use hyperfocal techniques. The best you can do is stop down a lot, and hope for the best. By definition, hyper focal distance must include infinity at it's far end.</p>

 

<p>I'm new to this idea, so bear with me. In reading the materials on hyperfocal focusing, it would seem as though it is the ONLY proper way to maximize DOF in an image. For instance, one author immediately scoffed at the idea of simply "focusing 1/3 of the way in" as a means of guestimating hyperfocal settings, since both focal length and f-stop affect the hyperfocal distance. </p>

<p>Not to be a wiseguy, but since all new cameras are AF, isn't this "new technology" foreclosing on a crucial photographic technique needed to get proper DOF? In other words, the laws governing lens optics hasn't changed a bit, but the new automated lens is now precluding the operator from achieving the right result? I know I am missing something obvious here, but what?</p>

<p>Hi Mark.</p>

<p>Your analysis is sound! There's no doubt that AF and zooms have eaten away at the art of of correct focusing technique. Firing away at f16 is no good either on an APS-C sensor thanks to diffraction beyond about f11. It's not very creative either. My initial solution was to print off some depth of field tables for common focal lengths. Unfortunately, they are a pain to carry round unless you put the relevant hyperfocal data into some kind of spreadsheet, print to A6 and laminate to take round with you.</p>

<p>I'll have a go at constructing a table in excel and post it somewhere. Or you could make the calculator shown on www.dofmaster.com. You then have the interesting task of trying to work out the focusing distance from less than perfect lens distance markings.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What you're missing is that hyperfocal focusing may have been used by a few to maximize DOF, but for most, it was more to have the camera pre-focused from a given distance to infinity (more or less), so that they could take pictures quickly without having to focus (such as in street photography, photojournalism, some sports). But now, since you can set-up autofocus to instantly focus automatically in such situations without having to specifically select a focus point, why use hyperfocal on those cameras. The autofocus system already gives you better than that.</p>

<p>You can do this easily by using this calculator:</p>

<p>http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html</p>

<p>One example: Last Saturday I photographed the 12th largest Halloween party in the US. I've been doing this for over a quarter-century. I knew the event, the space, and what I wanted this time. I took a D2x and an 18-55, but I calculated the DOF using the calculator above, and decided to use my flash between f/8 - f/11.</p>

<p>I taped the zoom ring at the 18mm setting. Turned the autofocus off, taped that as well as the focus ring at 4 feet. I did that by using a tape measure and focusing manually before taping it. One could paint a dot at the htperfocal focus setting, too.</p>

<p>I did not use any of my SB's. Instead, I used an older OM film-era flash, a T-32, set on non-ttl (yes, I checked the trigger voltage long ago) right on the hot shoe. I love the quality of light that unit puts out.</p>

<p>At f/8, I had from 2.5 to almost 10 feet. F/11 yielded from 2.2 ft to infinity.</p>

<p>All I did was switch the flash between f/8-11, occassionally move the aperture incrementally if needed, and the shutter speed to regulate ambient light/drag. The camera became inordinately fast, and the restrictions left me with little to do except <em>seeing. </em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>But now, since you can set-up autofocus to instantly focus automatically in such situations without having to specifically select a focus point, why use hyperfocal on those cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Focus on what though? That's what I am asking. The purpose of hyperfocal focusing is to assure that in a given scene, you have maximized the area that is in acceptable focus. You do this by focusing to a specific distance once you choose an f-stop. It's not a focusing <em>shortcut</em> to anything as I understand it. The laws of optics are not different in an autofocused lens from a manual lens. You pick a subject and your AF lens focuses on THAT subject. The question is 'how do you know THAT subject is located at the hyperfocal distance?'</p>

<p>So yes, you could use it to conveniently set your non-AF lens for fast street shooting (really scale focusing is more likely), but that is only one use of the technique, and not really the main use, if I understand it correctly. Maybe I don't.</p>

<p>Luis--<br>

Ok, that's a really interesting set of procedures. In essence, you simply had to override all the automation, and turn your cameras into an old school camera. Is that the gist of it? What were the results?</p>

<p>I have now made a table of hyperfocal distances for my D300. Any ideas where I can put it?(!). Each doubling of focal length quadruples the hyperfocal distance. Hyperfocal distance for any focal length halves when the aperture reduces by two stops. </p>

<p>The notion of 'depth-of-field' is a bit subjective anyway when it comes to what 'acceptable sharpness' means. If you know the distance you want, learn to estimate and find an object at that distance to focus on. This probably isn't any less accurate than the markings on lenses anyway, particularly the depth-of-field markings on variable-aperture zoom lenses. In many cases the markings on the lenses may have been intended for film and may not quite reflect the extra depth-of-field provided by smaller digital sensors.</p>

<p>The original post uses the term 'hyperfocal' but this really applies to any sort of zone focusing.</p>

<p>Here is my Hyperfocal table for the D300 - and probably other Nikon APSC sensors too.</p><div></div>

<p>Remember that these figures are for a given circle of confusion (acceptable level of sharpness) which in turn is related to sensor or film size. The hyperfocal distance means that everything will be <em><strong>acceptably sharp</strong></em> from half the hyperfocal distance to infinity. The only absolute point of maximum sharpness will be the focusing point.</p>

<p>BTW please feel free to save the chart and do what you want with it! </p>

 

<p>We're talking 35mm-sized or smaller cameras here right? I'm sure focusing based on a table will make a world of difference.</p>

<p>you can get DOF apps for iTouches and iPhones. I used 'field tools depth of field guide.' However, that does not entirely help if you have to guess at distances. My suggestion is that you guess at the focusing distance as well as you can (using manual focus), use the preview button to stop down and check, and then enlarge the image on the lcd to the maximum and check for focus. With a little trial and error, that should do it.</p>

<p>I had one of my AF cameras out the other day. I realized how hard it was to get the right hyperfocal focus. I wondered why it is that modern cameras don't solve this problem? A typical modern camera has two processors in it. With AF technology, it ought to be a rather simple processing problem to have the camera determine this based on where you point it. Maybe this feature exists in high-tech cameras and I just don't know about it? Isn't it an obvious thing one would implement with a computer controlled camera and lens?</p>

<p>Dan-- thanks. I will go look for the apps.</p>

<p>Most of my lenses have focus distances on them (the only exception is my nifty fifty). I'm wondering if the manufacturers are dropping it from consumer-class lenses since the feature may not be used by the typical consumer?</p>

<p><strong>Mark - "</strong>Ok, that's a really interesting set of procedures. In essence, you simply had to override all the automation, and turn your cameras into an old school camera. Is that the gist of it? What were the results?"</p>

<p>Excellent. Everything worked, and well. I know, it sounds primitive and atavistic, and to a degree it is. But it worked beautifully. I know old-school very well.</p>

<p>Mark, I know what it's for. I'm answering in the context of what it's useful for with small format cameras (even a full-frame is DSLR is still small format). As formats go down in size, depth of field is greater due to the shorter focal lengths. What can be said about P&S digicam DOF characteristics versus a DSLR can also be said about a DSLR vs large format. What it's useful for with 35mm sized cameras is exactly as I said before, and for that, autofocus pretty much negates the need for it.</p>

<p>Many of the famous street photographs from the past were done that way. I still use hyperfocal focusing myself. When I go out with my old Nikkormat, I've always got it pre-focused like this in case an opportunity for a photograph comes up. But if instant shooting is not a factor, then of course, I focus it more accurately onto the subject. With the AF cameras I've had, both pre and post digital, why would I bother? I just set the AF to dynamic area and let it do its thing.</p>

<p>In this format, the other reason to use hyperfocal or zone focusing, such as to maximize appropriate DOF for landscapes, is really overkill, because it won't give you appreciably better results than just using the old rule of thumb about focusing 1/3 of the way from the nearest object that must be sharp to the farthest.</p>

<p>The internet has allowed obsessive perfectionists the opportunity to spread a lot of technical information and methods that are of dubious benefit in real life. But by all means, try it and see for yourself. I was once a beginner with a new camera and without any practical experience -- 35 years ago. No internet back then, but plenty of popular photography magazine articles to spread the same stuff.</p>

<p>There's no way to do this with unmarked AF lenses until you can determine the focusing distance. There are ways of doing that, but none of them are truly worth the trouble of doing so. If a person were really intent on using this method say for landscapes, my suggestion to him would be to just get a lens that has the markings (and a camera to use it if necessary). Just keep in mind that in the 35mm or equivalent format, what is a wide angle lens already has tons of DOF. Less so in medium format, and much less in large format.</p>

<p>This idea is a little silly, it defeats its own purpose...try, say, having a TV remote but every time you use it, you'll have to dial in your distance + or -6 inches, from the TV to make it work...</p>

<p>Contemporary Photographers use AF and rely on it everyday...even pros. Why not just let it AF? </p>

<p>Here's a situation where I think a use of hyperfocal distance is beneficial. <br>

In landscape, very often, we want to maximize the depth of field. This can be done by stopping down the aperture. However, if we stop down the aperture too much, the sharpness of the lens suffers from diffraction limit effect. This means there is an aperture where the sharpness is highest. Usually, this number if f/11 or f/13. <br>

A way to optimize these 2 factors is to close the aperture lens down to the value where the lens is sharpest, and then focus the lens at an object at the hyperfocal distance. I think this allows us to have the maximum depth of field at the sharpest aperture.</p>

<p>There are many nice tutorials on cambridgecolour.com that you might be interested in. <br>

On general depth of field<br>

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm<br>

On hyperfocal distance:<br>

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/hyperfocal-distance.htm</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The internet has allowed obsessive perfectionists the opportunity to spread a lot of technical information and methods that are of dubious benefit in real life.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Pierre-<br>

Yes, I understand it is a small difference. But, I think hobbyists and enthusiasts come to a site like this to be interested in small differences, don't they? Otherwise, why spend $1200 for a lens if you are not going to maximize it's sharpness? Why trade in a 12MP camera for an 18MP camera when it's only going to be a small difference?</p>

<p>Truth is, I can take pictures with a $10 single use camera and they will come out "just fine" if I ignore all the many small differences. So yes, I really do understand we are talking about small differences.</p>

<p>What I am trying to understand is when did camera companies decide that DOF wasn't important for their users? The manual lenses had DOF markers are on them, specifically to be able to set hyperfocal focus, or range focusing. Just because AF was invented, doesn't change optical rules one iota. All the same optical phenomena that apply to a manual lens applies to an AF lens, right? And yet, pretty much most of the AF lenses I see have no provision for setting proper DOF. If getting the right focus was important in 1980, why isn't it important today? It's not the end of the world, it's just a curious thing to me given there is more processing power in a camera today than we had in the Lunar Lander, and yet the functionality seems to be less than a manual focus lens?</p>

<p>As for street shooting - sure, I set my manual lenses to hyperfocal for that too. And yes, it works great. My concern was for those landscape shots. I have some pretty expensive (to me) lenses, and I wanted to be sure I am really working them to their fullest. That's why I started looking into focus issues. I have some manual cameras and a couple AF ones too. I wanted to see what the differences would be in my technique. Thanks for sharing your opinions, I appreciate it, and I realize these little differences aren't interesting to most people, so I figured those with interest would read and post, and those who don't care would skip on by.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My concern was for those landscape shots</p>

<p>What I am trying to understand is when did camera companies decide that DOF wasn't important for their users? The manual lenses had DOF markers are on them, specifically to be able to set hyperfocal focus, or range focusing. Just because AF was invented...</p>

<p>Otherwise, why spend $1200 for a lens if you are not going to maximize it's sharpness? Why trade in a 12MP camera for an 18MP camera when it's only going to be a small difference?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If you are really serious about Landscape, get a medium format camera, filter set, tripod etc...They are cheap these days. No need to AF and there are DOF marking on all MF lenses AFAIK. No need to spend $1200 to upgrade 12mp to 18mp...Better yet, get into 4x5...Serious landscape shooters skipped 135mm and dslrs altogether...so your wondering and questions are all sorta moot...</p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Serious landscape shooters skipped 135mm and dslrs altogether...so your wondering and questions are all sorta moot...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really? I guess Canon and Nikon and Olympus haven't gotten that message yet then.</p>

<p>I have a tripod and a Bronica 6 x 6 MF. When focusing my Bronica, should I pay any attention to hyperfocal distance>?</p>

<p>Is the Bronica AF? NO</p>

<p>Does it have DOF scale? Yes</p>

<p>See why your questions are moot?</p>

<p> </p>