Hyper-focal distance

[ajrobertson]

<p>Ok. there are some crazy wildfires near the rockies where i live, at sundown, the sky is amazing..with the silloette of the mountains.<br>

I want to go out tonight and capture this... many of my far off focused at infinity efforts so far have been just o.k</p>

<p>I have been reading about hyper-focal distance etc and am a little confused. I understand the basic idea,( although i may have it upside down and inside out) but wonder how I am to focus at the hyper-focal distance with a ef-s lens and no distance scale.<br>

thanks for your help.</p>

[pete_harlan1]

<p><a href="http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html">http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html</a></p>

<p>With time and repetition, many values begin to be 2nd nature to you.</p>

 

[paddler4]

<p>Andrew,</p>

<p>The lack of a distance scale is a nuisance, I agree, but it is only useful if you are focusing manually anyway. So you could try bracketing: focus at infinity and then manually move it in slightly for several shots.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that some lenses focus past infinity, which I think is to allow for temperature changes, so you can't just turn it all the way and assume it is in focus.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[Charles_Webster]

<p>What's wrong with focussing manually? Doesn't require DoF calculators or distance scales.<br>

Set the AF/MF switch to the MF position, look through the viewfinder, and adjust the focus ring manually until the image in the VF is as sharp as you can make it.<br>

Don't use f/16-22 because diffraction will cost you sharpness.<br>

Manual focus takes practice, you'll need to learn how to focus through the plane you want in focus, then come back to acheive the sharpest focus.<br>

Don't pixel peep, nothing looks sharp at 200% enlargement. If it's sharp enough for your printing needs, then it's in focus.<br>

<Chas></p>

[dan_south]

<p>Caution: Pet peeve rant!</p>

<p>It was easy to select the hyper-focal distance with manual-focus prime lenses.</p>

<p>Modern cameras with computer-controlled zoom lenses ought to have a hyperfocal distance option built into their autofocus systems. The lens manufacturer knows the HFD for the lens at a given focal length, it knows the focal length, and it knows the f-stop. Turn the selector switch to HFD and let the camera focus at the precise distance for that aperture and focal length. Why are camera companies too lazy to give us this option?</p>

<p>Focus stacking in post-processing is a wonderful technique, but it doesn't work well when something in your photograph is moving (ocean waves, for example).</p>

 

[david_henderson]

<p>Just to start, if you are focussed on infinity , taking photographs of things a long way away and not achieving sharp focus on those distant objects, then your problem will not be solved by hyperfocal focussing. It might be all sorts of things including but not limited to not keeping the camera still and a focus fault in the lens/camera.</p>

<p>Leaving this aside, there are two tasks associated with this method of focus. The first is to find out where the hyperfocal distance is at the focal length you want to use. Easy enough, use a dof calculator which will often tell you directly,and even when it doesn't its easy to identify the closest distance at which infinity is shown to fall within the quoted dof.</p>

<p>Then second you have to get that focus on the camera. Frankly its not easy to get it right with lens barrel markings to use. Without them you have to estimate that distance and focus (in auto or manual, but its going to be even harder if you're using multiple focus points) on something you estimate to be that far away. </p>

<p>In short you're not going to get this dead right. And even if you do you need to recall that establishing "acceptable" focus over a maximum distance is no guarantee that the things that are most important in the picture will be as sharp as they could be. </p>

<p>For me, if I were having difficulty focussing I would use one focus point only, and make sure that that it was aimed at that part of the picture I most wanted to be critically sharp. Once you've proved that this works consistently you can then experiment with variations . </p>

[ajrobertson]

<p>thanks folks, ill give the above a try...</p>