Focus shifting - D850

Using focus shift - after selecting xx frames, where do you set the focus point at the fore-ground or background icw landscape and do you do the same for macro?

I asked previously on another site and got different responses.

I recently attended a Nikon Pro-info day, included was a talk on the D850's Focus Shift Functionality.

The technique, was explained to attendees, and that is to set the first focus point in the foreground.

Specifically, here below is an extract from the notes provided to me by NPS:

"Using focus shift, the camera takes a series of shots starting from a selected focus position and continuing toward infinity. Choose a starting focus position either at or slightly in front of the closest point of the section of the subject that is in the desired depth of field."

The Nikon Representative did not designate any different technique for Normal View (e.g. a Landscape Shot), Close-up; Macro.

I have not used a D850, nor do I have a Nikon Kit, nowadays, I am merely passing on what I told about an aspect of Nikon gear, which interests me.

WW

Using focus shift - after selecting xx frames, where do you set the focus point at the fore-ground or background icw landscape and do you do the same for macro? I asked previously on another site and got different responses.

The D850 focus shift is very much similar to the Z6's. Begin your focus from the closest point, then set the number of shots, etc. and let the camera shift focus from near to far. To be safe, begin your focus point a little closer than your closest focus point.

. I have only tried a coupe of times - near to far - but could hardly see any difference. Majority of my landscape photos have been from Vietnamese mountains, where you are standing on the edge with a couple of hundred meters down.

Most people use focus shift for macro photography because the depth of field is shallow when the distance is close. For landscape photos, especially if the distance of subject matter is far, depth of field is not normally a problem unless there is a close subject in the foreground.

I tested it on a macro subject after seeing your post - I can see the difference in sharpness. However, it is a cumbersome process as one needs to run the images through a focus stacking software. I am hoping Nikon will add a feature to do this in-camera sometime.

No problem, and good luck. I'll be interested in how you get on with it!

I will have to wait for good photo weather - have sun, blue sky, 29 C, but haze !!

The D850 focus shift is very much similar to the Z6's. Begin your focus from the closest point, then set the number of shots, etc. and let the camera shift focus from near to far. To be safe, begin your focus point a little closer than your closest focus point.

 

 

 

Most people use focus shift for macro photography because the depth of field is shallow when the distance is close. For landscape photos, especially if the distance of subject matter is far, depth of field is not normally a problem unless there is a close subject in the foreground.

 

I tested it on a macro subject after seeing your post - I can see the difference in sharpness. However, it is a cumbersome process as one needs to run the images through a focus stacking software. I am hoping Nikon will add a feature to do this in-camera sometime.

There are people making a living, that Nikon is not doing it in camera, so I had to get a dedicate software for that. Nikon may be able to make in camera for landscape, but today you may select 999 frames, and without being a IT man, I assume that requires a lot of internal computer power and more powerful batteries.

There are people making a living, that Nikon is not doing it in camera, so I had to get a dedicate software for that. Nikon may be able to make in camera for landscape, but today you may select 999 frames, and without being a IT man, I assume that requires a lot of internal computer power and more powerful batteries.

Actually Olympus E-M1 Mark II has it in-camera. But for some reason, it is sharper when the images are processed through a software (talking about Olympus). I use Helicon. There's another called "Zerene Stacker". Surely some landscape can use it too - for example, a rolling landscape of wildflowers from front to back would surely benefit from stacking. I would love to see your experiment with this feature sometime. Personally I would also hope to see more situations where the condition is suitable for it and are worth taking the extra effort for. Have fun.

So for macro stacking of something the size of a house-brick, you select, say, 20 frames, set focus on the front edge and press start.

How does the camera know when to stop?

So for macro stacking of something the size of a house-brick, you select, say, 20 frames, set focus on the front edge and press start. How does the camera know when to stop?

Good question. Perhaps that's why Nikon does not do it in-camera (yet) because it would not know where you want it to stop shooting (unless it's a white space beyond your brick subject - but even then the camera may not be programmed to know to stop at that point or you may not want it to).

This also has something to do with how many frames you want - but frankly it is hard to estimate precisely - or would surely take too much effort to do so. Using your brick example where you selected 20 frames: This may or may not be enough to cover the entire subject, as you also select focus-step-width (from narrow to wide), which is a judgement call (e.g., If too narrow the stacking may result in more artifact, if too wide, some important detail may be skipped, etc.). So I believe it would help to select more frames than what you think you will need; then, at post processing, eyeball each shot to determine which ones should be included - obviously discarding all the redundant ones at the end. Hope this helps. I am also learning... :)

So if it doesn't know when to stop are my 20 frames between the front edge and infinity?, in which case, 20 'steps' between the front edge and infinity will be about 1m each....

and that can't be right??

There are quite a few How-To photo stacking videos on You Tube. There are a few specific to the D850, including one from Nikon.

Each step adjusts the focus a certain amount depending on the width of the step. So 20 steps might only cover half the brick or it might go 10 feet past the brick. It is somewhat a trial and error process.

or it might go 10 feet past the brick

.....so does that mean it does actually stop before infinity?

.....so does that mean it does actually stop before infinity?

Yes it can stop before infinity. The camera shifts focus up to the number of shots you specify (300 shots max) or when it reaches infinity. In your brick example, it stops at 20 frames, unless it reaches infinity before 20 shots (not likely).

Here's a thought: It would be nice if we can specify our closest and furthest points of focus, then the camera calculates the optimum number of shots required to make the defined area sharp from edge to edge, plus and minus some optional user-controlled parameters.

.....so does that mean it does actually stop before infinity?

It depends on the lens and the position of your subject relative to the camera. Let's say infinity is 40 steps away. If you select a 20 step stack it will stop at 20 steps even if the end of your subject is 15 steps or 30 steps. If you select 50 steps it will stop at 40 steps(infinity).

I have taken 30 step stacks which did not cover the entire subject, I needed 50 steps.

Here's a thought: It would be nice if we can specify our closest and furthest points of focus, then the camera calculates the optimum number of shots required to make the defined area sharp from edge to edge, plus and minus some optional user-controlled parameters.

Thought a little about this. It may not always be a good idea: Say if I am shooting an insect on top of a leaf nestled among a few leaves that appear both in the front and back of the insect, and I would like the insect to be sharp from head to end by defining the beginning focus to the end-of-focus. Now the insect and the leaves beside the insect would look sharp, but the leaves at the front and back would look unnatural. Put it in another way, the insect and the leaves beside it would look unnaturally sharp. :( So the current Nikon design is probably the best compromise after all, cumbersome as it is, as we can select the frames we want to include or exclude.

Thought a little about this. It may not always be a good idea: Say if I am shooting an insect on top of a leaf nestled among a few leaves that appear both in the front and back of the insect, and I would like the insect to be sharp from head to end by defining the beginning focus to the end-of-focus. Now the insect and the leaves beside the insect would look sharp, but the leaves at the front and back would look unnatural. Put it in another way, the insect and the leaves beside it would look unnaturally sharp. :( So the current Nikon design is probably the best compromise after all, cumbersome as it is, as we can select the frames we want to include or exclude.

I think it is worth a try. Depending on your fstop the level of out-of-focus might not be too much. And it might draw the viewers eye to the sharply focused insect.

A guy told me this morning, that he had experienced setting the number of shots to 15 frames, but the camera actually took 50 for what ever reason" I then tried a landscape photo a couple of hours ago just to check, and I set frames to 9 and got 12 ! My example did not have any close foreground - relative steep mountains, but I will try to find better location during the forthcoming week.

Hmm... interesting! Didn't count my test. My camera took both NEF and JPG so there were quite a few. So the camera took more for "insurance"? ;)

Micro-step stacking is probably best reserved for closeups of relatively static objects, where DOF even at modest magnification is measured in fractions of an inch. Like any tool, it must be used appropriately. It is usually best to leave the background out of focus for closeups in nature, but you might want to show more of a flower in crisp detail than single-focus can accomplish.

Landscapes can be handled more simply, IMO, with as few as two or three images. In lieu of swings and tilts, focus stacking can render key details in a landscape from foregound to infinity. I stacked two images for this shot, to capture the fence in the foreground with the round barn in the background. If you look closely, parts of the fence are OOF where they overlap the barn, as well as the grass in middle plane. Even at f/8, one or the other would be greatly OOF without stacking. Anything which moves between frames may be doubled in rendering, like grass or twigs in the wind. A minimalist approach is probably the best. However just because you have dozens of frames doesn't mean you have to use them all.

At close range, the magnification can change significantly, due to focus breathing (internal focus changes the focal length), or simply because the lens moves further from the film plane when focused closer. Software like Helicon Focus will adjust and align key points in the images so that there is near perfect overlap.

I prefer to use a focusing rail for macro stacking (product and table-top photography), which results in far less change in magnification, and allows focus on key areas with great precision. Manual focusing is appropriate if the depth of the subject exceeds the range of the focusing rail, and improves the odds that AF with stepping will hit on the right plane.

AF, it can't adjust focus if you put it on manual!!

Although, I guess you can set it manually, as long as you engage AF for the actual shooting.....;)

I tested it this morning even that it was a little haze, and I selected 9 frames 1 width and it decided to take 12 frames. Another also with 9 frames but width 7 and it took 10 frames. the attached is with the latter setting, it is a little too dark due to the haze. I will find a better location later, but I am travelling one week now.