Tried and true faster focusing for the street with a 50mm.

[raid]

Still not getting it. “Back off,” as in step backwards, into the hyperfocal zone?
What if stepping back does not give the framing I want?

And, Raid, so much of SP is setting; blurring it out makes no sense to me at all. Seems to me that Peter Karbe contradicts much of the rich history of Leica street/documentary photography.

I don’t know if he has done this, John.

 

[raid]

F11 on 50 doesn't give everything in focus. It is two zones.
But if we would take earlier HCB approach of four meters and more with 50, it will do.

It will work well if we also guess the distance.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I don’t know if he has done this, John.

Lot of money and street photogaphy not co-exist.
I mean real dedication for street photogaphy. Not an YT talking heads. Or dudes selling leather grocery grandma purses as camera bags.
To have a lot of money person needs to spend time on real work.
And photogaphy is just a hobby. LCAG is for leisure and pleasure.

How to sell several thousands dollars (often nothing special optically anymore) lens for this kind of limited in time on creativeness audience? And maybe not well informed, because they have to stay informed for where they make the money.
Exactly! Shoot WO!
WO makes it cool always. No real content needed.
Plus, it feels better with several thousands dollars lens which is "optimized" for wo.

Just in case, no matter how sharp and else lens @f1, it is often impossible to have an object in focus at such aperture. The real thing some knows, is what such fast lenses gives very different bokeh at much smaller apertures.

But Krabe hasn't told to do so, I guess. Totally understandable. It is hard to explain for typical crowd what they need to step down to have more content and very pleasing bokeh. Marketing message can't be this complicated. It should be one and only step, word.
WO!

 

[Jonathan R]

Lot of money and street photogaphy not co-exist.
I mean real dedication for street photogaphy. Not an YT talking heads. Or dudes selling leather grocery grandma purses as camera bags.
To have a lot of money person needs to spend time on real work.
And photogaphy is just a hobby. LCAG is for leisure and pleasure.

How to sell several thousands dollars (often nothing special optically anymore) lens for this kind of limited in time on creativeness audience? And maybe not well informed, because they have to stay informed for where they make the money.
Exactly! Shoot WO!
WO makes it cool always. No real content needed.
Plus, it feels better with several thousands dollars lens which is "optimized" for wo.

Just in case, no matter how sharp and else lens @f1, it is often impossible to have an object in focus at such aperture. The real thing some knows, is what such fast lenses gives very different bokeh at much smaller apertures.

But Krabe hasn't told to do so, I guess. Totally understandable. It is hard to explain for typical crowd what they need to step down to have more content and very pleasing bokeh. Marketing message can't be this complicated. It should be one and only step, word.
WO!

Would you mind explaining LCAG and WO for an old duffer? I Googled LCAG, and the answer seems to be Leeds Cyclists Action Group, Limousine Club Alpine Gordoni, or Lincoln City Assembly of God. None of these seem quite right in the context.

 

[JoeV]

LCAG = Leica Camera AG.
WO = Wide Open.

 

[Jonathan R]

LCAG = Leica Camera AG.
WO = Wide Open.

Thanks for explaining. I’m totally dazed by this thread.

 

[raid]

It is a thread that creates a lot of questions and few clear answers. There are many opinions, though.
I also use the 50/1 at other lens openings, depending on the situation. The OOF can be very interesting at 50/2 or 50/2.8, say. When I want the entire image to be as sharp as possible, I often use the 50/1 at f8~f11.

ko.fe said: Just in case, no matter how sharp and else lens @f1, it is often impossible to have an object in focus at such aperture. The real thing some knows, is what such fast lenses gives very different bokeh at much smaller apertures.

 

[Ororaro]

Because it’s easier to write LCAG than Leic or even Leica… 😀✌️

 

[Jonathan R]

It is a thread that creates a lot of questions and few clear answers. There are many opinions, though.
I also use the 50/1 at other lens openings, depending on the situation. The OOF can be very interesting at 50/2 or 50/2.8, say. When I want the entire image to be as sharp as possible, I often use the 50/1 at f8~f11.

Yes, but that’s just basic photography. The point about quality optics (and I guess Leica stands as the brand people love or love to hate) is that you do have the choice: they won’t let you down wide open.

My best advice to the OP is to ignore formulaic advice and figure out your own way of getting the photos you want.

 

[luuca]

Thanks for explaining. I’m totally dazed by this thread.

I'm with you, this thread is sooo entertaining...
and the fact that the Op disappeared after the first post, letting everyone else to grow the discussion... perfect!

 

[Richard G]

It’s not a film v digital thread. It is not a light meter thread. It might have backed off, backed off of itself, but for “back off” in the first post. From that little kernel we might have got two pages, maybe three. But the genius of the first post was not just the “back off” and the triumphant QED of the formula, without showing all his working, but he also specified a 50mm lens. This was the seemingly simple Diabelli theme to our subsequent many, more than 33, variations. Not so simple mind - notice the off was italicized, only the off? Perhaps with the increasing sophistication of these young people we will break new ground in thread design.

 

[Ororaro]

Maybe “back OFF” as in “back: NO”

 

[luuca]

or maybe "back OOF"? (out of focus)

 

[Richard G]

or maybe "back OOF"? (out of focus)

The two letters o and f can go a very long way, especially in America, where the usage inserts what elsewhere is a redundant ‘of’. Maybe then we are all a bit OOF off of the back of this thread of riffs on “back off”.

 

[wrs1145]

"Back off to focus" means to reduce focal distance.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

"Back off to focus" means to reduce focal distance.

if you're "reduc(ing) the focal distance"..... are you approaching the subject? Or do you mean adjusting the lens from infinity to a shorter distance? Just asking for clarity.

 

[mapgraphs]

"Focal Distances

In contrast to focal lengths, focal distances are related not to the principal planes but rather to the vertex points of lenses (not caring about a housing, which may be further extended). The front focal distance is thus the distance between front focal point and the entrance surface of the optics, while the back focal distance is the distance between the back surface and the back focal point.
Focal distances are sometimes confused with focal lengths!

Unfortunately, the terms are also used differently by other authors. For example, it happens that a focal distance is assumed to be the same as a focal length. Therefore, some product catalogs specify focal lengths, which should actually be called focal distances, and in addition the effective focal length.

The focal distance should also not be confused with the working distance, which is the distance between a specimen and the lens housing. Note that a specimen is not necessarily placed in the focal plane, e.g. when the input light to an objective is not collimated."

focal length

The focal length of an optical system is a measure of how strongly it focuses or defocuses light.

www.rp-photonics.com

 

[wrs1145]

You're standing still.

 

[raid]

"Focal Distances

In contrast to focal lengths, focal distances are related not to the principal planes but rather to the vertex points of lenses (not caring about a housing, which may be further extended). The front focal distance is thus the distance between front focal point and the entrance surface of the optics, while the back focal distance is the distance between the back surface and the back focal point.
Focal distances are sometimes confused with focal lengths!

Unfortunately, the terms are also used differently by other authors. For example, it happens that a focal distance is assumed to be the same as a focal length. Therefore, some product catalogs specify focal lengths, which should actually be called focal distances, and in addition the effective focal length.

The focal distance should also not be confused with the working distance, which is the distance between a specimen and the lens housing. Note that a specimen is not necessarily placed in the focal plane, e.g. when the input light to an objective is not collimated."

focal length

The focal length of an optical system is a measure of how strongly it focuses or defocuses light.

www.rp-photonics.com

This needs to be read more than once. Thanks.

 

[Godfrey]

I apologize for the redundancy if mentioned here before, but here's a method for fast focusing that I picked up on YouTube recently: from a Pro in London Set aperture at f/8 or f11, then back off to focus. Set shutter speed at 500. Voila! that's it.

Best of luck,
Bill

Three pages so far and still no clarity as to what "... then back off to focus" is intended to mean. Why are we all spending time on this question?

G