X-T1 hyperfocal distance

[Burb]

Hi!

 

Recently I was trying to get an nice sharp overall image while manual focusing at the hyperfocal distance. I have the 18-135 mm lens, the pictures I had taken where all at a focal length of 18mm. The apertures I tried where F16, F11 and F8 so the hyper focal distance should be (according to DOF Master) respectively 1.03, 1,45 and 2,04 meters. The results where pretty sharp!! So it seems to be working! But the distance indicator on the X-T1 is not that accurate (white indicator, not the blue zone) therefore it is almost impossible to set the distance indicator at exactly 1,45 meter as example. I was wondering if you guy's are using these values as well or using different values, resulting in a better sharpness?

 

(I'm aware of the discussions about the representation of the blue DOF zone towards infinity)

 

Greetz, Burb

[Norseman]

The other 'rule of thumb' is to focus 1/3 of the way into the scene that you want in focus. The DOF should be approximately 1/3 closer to camera and 2/3 further from focus point.

[Warwick]

The 14, 16 and 23mm lenses have depth of field markings on - easy to set (line the infinity-sign up with the aperture value on the left). I use those markings a lot

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Burb]

The 18-135 lens don't have these markers so I'm stuck with the digital distance indicator.

[jlmphotos]

I've never tried that.  I'll have to do so and see what my results are.

Thanks

[Antony]

The 14, 16 and 23mm lenses have depth of field markings on - easy to set (line the infinity-sign up with the aperture value on the left). I use those markings a lot

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Antony]

The 14, 16 and 23mm lenses have depth of field markings on - easy to set (line the infinity-sign up with the aperture value on the left). I use those markings a lot.

It's important to note that the lens markings are not as precise as the electronic ones - they use the hyper focal calculations applicable to the old film days, and as a result are more generous than the modern ones in the viewfinder designed for modern pixel peeping.

[mjh]

The other 'rule of thumb' is to focus 1/3 of the way into the scene that you want in focus. The DOF should be approximately 1/3 closer to camera and 2/3 further from focus point.

This popular ‘rule’ is generally wrong, safe for one distance (depending on both focal length and f-stop, so it’s not even always the same distance). Quite obviously it is wrong for the case in question, namly the hyperfocal distance, as the depth of field then reaches from half that distance all the way to infinity. What’s 1/3 of infinity supposed to be?

 

Having said that, I have rarely found a use for hyperfocal focusing. With street photography, for example, you are usually better off focusing for the typical distance your subjects will be in; who cares about infinity with this kind of shots? And as Harold P. Merklinger has argued decades ago, for landscape shots it is usually preferable to just focus at infinity rather than fiddling with formulas for the hyperfocal distance.

[Warwick]

I tend to trust the markings on my lens - but if you want to be absolutely certain you can download apps for your phone like SimpleDOF that tells you the right distance and aperture settings for any lens.

Hyperfocal is enormously useful for close-up sports, pets, children and other erratc fast-moving subjects where autofocus can't keep up. Especially outdoors in bright sunlight where you can get both a small aperture and a fast shutter-speed. If you can set your camera so that you know everything beyond, say, five feet away is going to be in focus and without unwanted motion blur, you can concentrate on catching the moment.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mjh]

Hyperfocal is enormously useful for close-up sports, pets, children and other erratc fast-moving subjects where autofocus can't keep up.

Wouldn’t that be an argument for zone focusing rather than hyperfocal focusing? Under some circumstances it may amount to the same thing but again: when is sharpness at infinity something to worry about? When photographing children or pets I would always go for an additional 1 metre in front and gladly sacrifice sharpness at infinity if that is what it requires.

[Warwick]

I use both. Depends on the lens, depends on the lighting conditions, depends on how close your subject is likely to come (low light, a less wide-angle lens and a subject that comes in close mean that your background will be in focus but your subject an indistinct blur).

I'm not that bothered about the focus at infinity: it's just reassuring, if conditions are right, to know that you've set your focus for maximum depth of field, so whatever your subject does, chances are it'll be in focus.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Burb]

Oké thanks for all the answers so far! I think I will try some test shots with the digital distance marker at infinity to see witch setting will give the best results.