Two alternate focusing strategies.

[Erik Kaffehr]

As an alternative to DoF tables or calculating the hyperfocal distance, I would suggest two focusing strategies.

1. The first one I would focus on main subject, preferable using magnified live view combined with peaking, stopped down 1-2 stops(*). After doing that I would inspect subjects near and far, still using maagnified live view, stopping down until acceptable sharpness is achieved near or far.
2. The secon approach needs a lens with a focusing scale. Focus on the remote part of the image that needs to be in focus. Note the position on the focusing ring. Than focus on the closest part that needs to be in focus. And note the position of the focusing ring. Now, put the focus mark half way between the noted positions. Ignore the foot/meter markings, just put the focus mid way between the noted positions.

Either way, we need to be aware that achieveing depth of field is a compromise game. Making use of high resolution systems is giving up something for something gained.

Stopping down to much gives up on optimal sharpness, but much of that can be counter acted by adequate sharpening technique.

Best regards

Erik

 

[Rodenmg]

As an alternative to DoF tables or calculating the hyperfocal distance, I would suggest two focusing strategies.

1. The first one I would focus on main subject, preferable using magnified live view combined with peaking, stopped down 1-2 stops(*). After doing that I would inspect subjects near and far, still using maagnified live view, stopping down until acceptable sharpness is achieved near or far.
2. The secon approach needs a lens with a focusing scale. Focus on the remote part of the image that needs to be in focus. Note the position on the focusing ring. Than focus on the closest part that needs to be in focus. And note the position of the focusing ring. Now, put the focus mark half way between the noted positions. Ignore the foot/meter markings, just put the focus mid way between the noted positions.

Either way, we need to be aware that achieveing depth of field is a compromise game. Making use of high resolution systems is giving up something for something gained.

Stopping down to much gives up on optimal sharpness, but much of that can be counter acted by adequate sharpening technique.

Best regards

Erik

 

[dbateman]

As an alternative to DoF tables or calculating the hyperfocal distance, I would suggest two focusing strategies.

1. The first one I would focus on main subject, preferable using magnified live view combined with peaking, stopped down 1-2 stops(*). After doing that I would inspect subjects near and far, still using maagnified live view, stopping down until acceptable sharpness is achieved near or far.
2. The secon approach needs a lens with a focusing scale. Focus on the remote part of the image that needs to be in focus. Note the position on the focusing ring. Than focus on the closest part that needs to be in focus. And note the position of the focusing ring. Now, put the focus mark half way between the noted positions. Ignore the foot/meter markings, just put the focus mid way between the noted positions.

Either way, we need to be aware that achieveing depth of field is a compromise game. Making use of high resolution systems is giving up something for something gained.

Stopping down to much gives up on optimal sharpness, but much of that can be counter acted by adequate sharpening technique.

Best regards

Erik

Method 2 assumes you have adequate depth of field to cover your points. You might just get the front and back things blurry and something in the middle in focus. If that's the case and your subject is not moving. I would add that you should take an image at each focus adjustment points in the process. If your end middle of the focus range shot doesn't have adequate focus, you can then select one of the other images or stack the collected images.

We are mostly shooting digital here on the forum, so images are free. Take more and delete, the cost was up front with the camera purchase.

I actually do this method a lot with close focusing subjects, as I will sometimes like a selected focus point of a flower. A range in focus, rather than all in focus can work sometimes.

 

[Erik Kaffehr]

As an alternative to DoF tables or calculating the hyperfocal distance, I would suggest two focusing strategies.

1. The first one I would focus on main subject, preferable using magnified live view combined with peaking, stopped down 1-2 stops(*). After doing that I would inspect subjects near and far, still using maagnified live view, stopping down until acceptable sharpness is achieved near or far.
2. The secon approach needs a lens with a focusing scale. Focus on the remote part of the image that needs to be in focus. Note the position on the focusing ring. Than focus on the closest part that needs to be in focus. And note the position of the focusing ring. Now, put the focus mark half way between the noted positions. Ignore the foot/meter markings, just put the focus mid way between the noted positions.

Either way, we need to be aware that achieveing depth of field is a compromise game. Making use of high resolution systems is giving up something for something gained.

Stopping down to much gives up on optimal sharpness, but much of that can be counter acted by adequate sharpening technique.

Best regards

Erik

Thanks Eric. #2 sounds like a great thing for me to try. I’ve been doing quite a bit of manual focusing with the Fuji T/S lenses and the Leica M on a Nikon body. The distance scales and dof range marking on the M lens I find pretty much useless. I’ll try your technique next time.

With #2, we still need to stop down enough so the important stuff gets proper focus.

Best regards

Erik

 

[Rodenmg]

As an alternative to DoF tables or calculating the hyperfocal distance, I would suggest two focusing strategies.

1. The first one I would focus on main subject, preferable using magnified live view combined with peaking, stopped down 1-2 stops(*). After doing that I would inspect subjects near and far, still using maagnified live view, stopping down until acceptable sharpness is achieved near or far.
2. The secon approach needs a lens with a focusing scale. Focus on the remote part of the image that needs to be in focus. Note the position on the focusing ring. Than focus on the closest part that needs to be in focus. And note the position of the focusing ring. Now, put the focus mark half way between the noted positions. Ignore the foot/meter markings, just put the focus mid way between the noted positions.

Either way, we need to be aware that achieveing depth of field is a compromise game. Making use of high resolution systems is giving up something for something gained.

Stopping down to much gives up on optimal sharpness, but much of that can be counter acted by adequate sharpening technique.

Best regards

Erik

Thanks Eric. #2 sounds like a great thing for me to try. I’ve been doing quite a bit of manual focusing with the Fuji T/S lenses and the Leica M on a Nikon body. The distance scales and dof range marking on the M lens I find pretty much useless. I’ll try your technique next time.

With #2, we still need to stop down enough so the important stuff gets proper focus.

Best regards

Erik

 

[I_love_tacos]

As an alternative to DoF tables or calculating the hyperfocal distance, I would suggest two focusing strategies.

1. The first one I would focus on main subject, preferable using magnified live view combined with peaking, stopped down 1-2 stops(*). After doing that I would inspect subjects near and far, still using maagnified live view, stopping down until acceptable sharpness is achieved near or far.
2. The secon approach needs a lens with a focusing scale. Focus on the remote part of the image that needs to be in focus. Note the position on the focusing ring. Than focus on the closest part that needs to be in focus. And note the position of the focusing ring. Now, put the focus mark half way between the noted positions. Ignore the foot/meter markings, just put the focus mid way between the noted positions.

Either way, we need to be aware that achieveing depth of field is a compromise game. Making use of high resolution systems is giving up something for something gained.

Stopping down to much gives up on optimal sharpness, but much of that can be counter acted by adequate sharpening technique.

Best regards

Erik

When shooting landscapes with my GFX 100S-II, I turn on the DoF scale in the viewfinder and use that. When I'm shooting landscapes, I rack focus until the right side of the DoF bar touches infinity. I could also use a variation of this method to shoot as you suggest in #2 so as to use lenses which do not have a DoF scale.

Question: With all of the supercomputers packed into our digital cameras, why is it that none of them offer a simple "hyperfocal" function to instantly rack focus to this point? In fact, with all of the AI nowadays a camera should easily be able to detect the type of scene and automatically suggest focus points that would work best.

Our cameras can recognize planes, trains, automobiles, people, eyeballs, and animals, but they can't automatically figure out or suggest hyperfocal focusing distance? Insane.

 

[JimKasson]

1. The secon approach needs a lens with a focusing scale. Focus on the remote part of the image that needs to be in focus. Note the position on the focusing ring. Than focus on the closest part that needs to be in focus. And note the position of the focusing ring. Now, put the focus mark half way between the noted positions. Ignore the foot/meter markings, just put the focus mid way between the noted positions.

Zone focusing. Tried and true.

 

[Erik Kaffehr]

1. The secon approach needs a lens with a focusing scale. Focus on the remote part of the image that needs to be in focus. Note the position on the focusing ring. Than focus on the closest part that needs to be in focus. And note the position of the focusing ring. Now, put the focus mark half way between the noted positions. Ignore the foot/meter markings, just put the focus mid way between the noted positions.

Zone focusing. Tried and true.

Jim, I don't agree or disagree.

My point is that the technique I suggest finds the optimal point of focus with a helical focus ring as the optimal focus is centered in the image space, contrary to the object space. This is to my best understanding, but I may be wrong and there are in all probability second order effects I ignore.

Just to say, my suggested method still involves accurate focusing, using magnified live view with peaking.

Best regards

Erik

 

[JimKasson]

1. The secon approach needs a lens with a focusing scale. Focus on the remote part of the image that needs to be in focus. Note the position on the focusing ring. Than focus on the closest part that needs to be in focus. And note the position of the focusing ring. Now, put the focus mark half way between the noted positions. Ignore the foot/meter markings, just put the focus mid way between the noted positions.

Zone focusing. Tried and true.

Jim, I don't agree or disagree.

My point is that the technique I suggest finds the optimal point of focus with a helical focus ring as the optimal focus is centered in the image space,

Agree.

contrary to the object space. This is to my best understanding, but I may be wrong and there are in all probability second order effects I ignore.

Just to say, my suggested method still involves accurate focusing, using magnified live view with peaking.

You are finding a better way to set the edges of the zone. That's a good thing.

 

[YaYoureAlright]

...

When shooting landscapes with my GFX 100S-II, I turn on the DoF scale in the viewfinder and use that. When I'm shooting landscapes, I rack focus until the right side of the DoF bar touches infinity. I could also use a variation of this method to shoot as you suggest in #2 so as to use lenses which do not have a DoF scale.

Question: With all of the supercomputers packed into our digital cameras, why is it that none of them offer a simple "hyperfocal" function to instantly rack focus to this point? In fact, with all of the AI nowadays a camera should easily be able to detect the type of scene and automatically suggest focus points that would work best.

Our cameras can recognize planes, trains, automobiles, people, eyeballs, and animals, but they can't automatically figure out or suggest hyperfocal focusing distance? Insane.

I never thought of that before, but ya, why not have a hyperfocal infinity setting? The tech absolutely could do it and it would be a convenience for certain genres.

 

[Smogg]

As an alternative to DoF tables or calculating the hyperfocal distance, I would suggest two focusing strategies.

1. The first one I would focus on main subject, preferable using magnified live view combined with peaking, stopped down 1-2 stops(*). After doing that I would inspect subjects near and far, still using maagnified live view, stopping down until acceptable sharpness is achieved near or far.
2. The secon approach needs a lens with a focusing scale. Focus on the remote part of the image that needs to be in focus. Note the position on the focusing ring. Than focus on the closest part that needs to be in focus. And note the position of the focusing ring. Now, put the focus mark half way between the noted positions. Ignore the foot/meter markings, just put the focus mid way between the noted positions.

Why in the middle between the positions?

As far as I know, the distribution of depth of field around the object in focus will be as follows: approximately two-thirds of the sharply displayed space is behind the object, and one-third is in front.

 

[JimKasson]

As an alternative to DoF tables or calculating the hyperfocal distance, I would suggest two focusing strategies.

1. The first one I would focus on main subject, preferable using magnified live view combined with peaking, stopped down 1-2 stops(*). After doing that I would inspect subjects near and far, still using maagnified live view, stopping down until acceptable sharpness is achieved near or far.
2. The secon approach needs a lens with a focusing scale. Focus on the remote part of the image that needs to be in focus. Note the position on the focusing ring. Than focus on the closest part that needs to be in focus. And note the position of the focusing ring. Now, put the focus mark half way between the noted positions. Ignore the foot/meter markings, just put the focus mid way between the noted positions.

Why in the middle between the positions?

As far as I know, the distribution of depth of field around the object in focus will be as follows: approximately two-thirds of the sharply displayed space is behind the object, and one-third is in front.

Erik is doing the calculation in the image field, not the object field. That's how a helicoid works.

 

[GodSpeaks]

Question: With all of the supercomputers packed into our digital cameras, why is it that none of them offer a simple "hyperfocal" function to instantly rack focus to this point? In fact, with all of the AI nowadays a camera should easily be able to detect the type of scene and automatically suggest focus points that would work best.

Our cameras can recognize planes, trains, automobiles, people, eyeballs, and animals, but they can't automatically figure out or suggest hyperfocal focusing distance? Insane.

LOL. I agree 100%. And yet, we STILL do not have RAW histograms, among other things.

 

[Smogg]

As an alternative to DoF tables or calculating the hyperfocal distance, I would suggest two focusing strategies.

1. The first one I would focus on main subject, preferable using magnified live view combined with peaking, stopped down 1-2 stops(*). After doing that I would inspect subjects near and far, still using maagnified live view, stopping down until acceptable sharpness is achieved near or far.
2. The secon approach needs a lens with a focusing scale. Focus on the remote part of the image that needs to be in focus. Note the position on the focusing ring. Than focus on the closest part that needs to be in focus. And note the position of the focusing ring. Now, put the focus mark half way between the noted positions. Ignore the foot/meter markings, just put the focus mid way between the noted positions.

Why in the middle between the positions?

As far as I know, the distribution of depth of field around the object in focus will be as follows: approximately two-thirds of the sharply displayed space is behind the object, and one-third is in front.

Erik is doing the calculation in the image field, not the object field. That's how a helicoid works.

 

[Alexander6x6]

As an alternative to DoF tables or calculating the hyperfocal distance, I would suggest two focusing strategies.

1. The first one I would focus on main subject, preferable using magnified live view combined with peaking, stopped down 1-2 stops(*). After doing that I would inspect subjects near and far, still using maagnified live view, stopping down until acceptable sharpness is achieved near or far.
2. The secon approach needs a lens with a focusing scale. Focus on the remote part of the image that needs to be in focus. Note the position on the focusing ring. Than focus on the closest part that needs to be in focus. And note the position of the focusing ring. Now, put the focus mark half way between the noted positions. Ignore the foot/meter markings, just put the focus mid way between the noted positions.

Either way, we need to be aware that achieveing depth of field is a compromise game. Making use of high resolution systems is giving up something for something gained.

Stopping down to much gives up on optimal sharpness, but much of that can be counter acted by adequate sharpening technique.

Best regards

Erik

The best way to focus with the 3rd party lenses I achieved using following steps:

1. Focus toward infinity and never start from infinity paying attention on the pixel peaking at the edges (if a wide angle lens is used)
2. Using zoom tool and pixel peaking adjust the focusing at the object controlling the edges

Switching to the black-white mode helps a lot.

 

[Pd printer]

As an alternative to DoF tables or calculating the hyperfocal distance, I would suggest two focusing strategies.

1. The first one I would focus on main subject, preferable using magnified live view combined with peaking, stopped down 1-2 stops(*). After doing that I would inspect subjects near and far, still using maagnified live view, stopping down until acceptable sharpness is achieved near or far.
2. The secon approach needs a lens with a focusing scale. Focus on the remote part of the image that needs to be in focus. Note the position on the focusing ring. Than focus on the closest part that needs to be in focus. And note the position of the focusing ring. Now, put the focus mark half way between the noted positions. Ignore the foot/meter markings, just put the focus mid way between the noted positions.

Either way, we need to be aware that achieveing depth of field is a compromise game. Making use of high resolution systems is giving up something for something gained.

Stopping down to much gives up on optimal sharpness, but much of that can be counter acted by adequate sharpening technique.

Best regards

Erik

Your method 2 is my standard focusing method with my large format camera (I made a table to tell me what f-stop is required for what delta extension) and was for my Leica M cameras. Are you sure that it works with modern lenses with internal focusing and/or floating elements which leads to focus breathing (change of focal length). Also focus by wire could have a nonlinear travel?

 

[Satyaa]

As an alternative to DoF tables or calculating the hyperfocal distance, I would suggest two focusing strategies.

1. The first one I would focus on main subject, preferable using magnified live view combined with peaking, stopped down 1-2 stops(*). After doing that I would inspect subjects near and far, still using maagnified live view, stopping down until acceptable sharpness is achieved near or far.
2. The secon approach needs a lens with a focusing scale. Focus on the remote part of the image that needs to be in focus. Note the position on the focusing ring. Than focus on the closest part that needs to be in focus. And note the position of the focusing ring. Now, put the focus mark half way between the noted positions. Ignore the foot/meter markings, just put the focus mid way between the noted positions.

Either way, we need to be aware that achieveing depth of field is a compromise game. Making use of high resolution systems is giving up something for something gained.

Stopping down to much gives up on optimal sharpness, but much of that can be counter acted by adequate sharpening technique.

Best regards

Erik

When shooting landscapes with my GFX 100S-II, I turn on the DoF scale in the viewfinder and use that. When I'm shooting landscapes, I rack focus until the right side of the DoF bar touches infinity. I could also use a variation of this method to shoot as you suggest in #2 so as to use lenses which do not have a DoF scale.

Question: With all of the supercomputers packed into our digital cameras, why is it that none of them offer a simple "hyperfocal" function to instantly rack focus to this point? In fact, with all of the AI nowadays a camera should easily be able to detect the type of scene and automatically suggest focus points that would work best.

Our cameras can recognize planes, trains, automobiles, people, eyeballs, and animals, but they can't automatically figure out or suggest hyperfocal focusing distance? Insane.

This was Canon's attempt. Not sure why it wasn't developed further with more sophisticated algorithms.

How Automatic Depth-of-Field (A-DEP) mode works on the EOS Digital Rebel XTi