Is soft focus unavoidable with hyperfocal shooting?

[Godfrey]

Godfrey,

I use an M5 with a 50 1.8 all the time, so I should know the lens like the back of my hand. Unfortunately, I don't.

I will definately get the 30m tape measure out and do some test shots, but I really could do with a metric lens scale.

I wonder if there's a work around, like a quick reference chart taped to the top of the camera, showing metric converted to imperial to match the lens?

You can make something like that, it's easy enough. I do it in my head:
1m - 3'
1.5m - 4.5'
2m - 6'
Etc. it's approximate but generally close enough for f/5.6-8 or smaller lens openings at normal street distances.

Learning to see in the scale's feet is a better solution. Assuming the rangefinder produces accurate focusing, regardless of what the scale says, try focusing on a subject by scale, then check the result with the rangefinder. See what comes up on the scale. Do that over and over with typical scenes and just remember the actual settings, rather than estimating the distance.

This is actually how I focus by zone most of the time, rather than estimating distance. I miss occasionally, but my averages are very good for consistently sharp focus.

 

[mfogiel]

The average rf lens is probably 40mm. At f 5.6 and focus at infinity, you are bound to resolve anything bigger than 7mm, and most objects at 5 meters or so will be completely sharp. On the other hand, if you set a 28mm lens to f8.0 and focus at hyperfocal, but you are not shooting with a steady hand, you will get motion blur. I have just scanned a photo I made from about 7 meters of a chap, who held his car keys dangling from his hand - I shot on Tri X at f4.0 and probably 1/4000th of a second. Despite a not so sharp film, I can see the logo of the car on the keys. This will never happen if you shoot at 1/125th handheld. Unfortunately, I cannot show the examples now, because Flickr is swamped.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The average rf lens is probably 40mm. At f 5.6 and focus at infinity, you are bound to resolve anything bigger than 7mm, and most objects at 5 meters or so will be completely sharp. On the other hand, if you set a 28mm lens to f8.0 and focus at hyperfocal, but you are not shooting with a steady hand, you will get motion blur. I have just scanned a photo I made from about 7 meters of a chap, who held his car keys dangling from his hand - I shot on Tri X at f4.0 and probably 1/4000th of a second. Despite a not so sharp film, I can see the logo of the car on the keys. This will never happen if you shoot at 1/125th handheld. Unfortunately, I cannot show the examples now, because Flickr is swamped.

Well, you do it your way, and everyone else will do it theirs. I agree that fast shutter speeds are a good idea, but 'at least 1/1000' is completely over the top and I still cannot see how you can get sharper pictures by leaving the lens at infinity than by focusing -- even zone focusing, for those unfortunate palsied souls who cannot focus a rangefinder quickly and accurately.

Also, what on earth is an 'average' focal length? And why 40mm? Sure, 35m and 50mm are common enough -- but 40mm?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

You can make something like that, it's easy enough. I do it in my head:
1m - 3'
1.5m - 4.5'
2m - 6'
Etc. it's approximate but generally close enough for f/5.6-8 or smaller lens openings at normal street distances.

Learning to see in the scale's feet is a better solution. Assuming the rangefinder produces accurate focusing, regardless of what the scale says, try focusing on a subject by scale, then check the result with the rangefinder. See what comes up on the scale. Do that over and over with typical scenes and just remember the actual settings, rather than estimating the distance.

This is actually how I focus by zone most of the time, rather than estimating distance. I miss occasionally, but my averages are very good for consistently sharp focus.

Or: yards = slightly short metres, and multiplying/dividing by three (to turn yards into feet or feet into yards) is hardly demanding.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Godfrey]

Or: yards = slightly short metres, and multiplying/dividing by three (to turn yards into feet or feet into yards) is hardly demanding.

Certainly ...

But I always encourage people to think in terms of what the distance scale on a lens presents. Once you get in the habit of thinking feet for a lens marked in feet, and meters for a lens marked in meters, it's less likely that you'll divide wrong or choose the wrong units when working in the field. Most street photography tends to happen in the 4 to 20 feet (1.2 to 6.1 m) range with a 50mm lens, so it's not like you need to remember a lot of different focus settings, not at f/5.6 to f/11 anyway.

For larger lens openings, I stick to using the rangefinder most of the time with a 50mm lens on 35mm film format. DoF gets a little too tight to cover errors in the nearer portion of this range.

 

[grapejohnson]

Not to be a troll but you could also always just focus with the VF. Most people don't care that you're taking their picture, particularly if you are nice to them after. You can practice "quick-drawing." One way I've done this was pre-focusing close enough to what I would expect and meter correctly while standing on the side of the road, and I waited for cars to pass by and I'd try to shoot the driver. I got some surprisingly sharp pictures that way. I've never gotten a good picture scale focusing, then again I haven't tried enough. I just figure if I have this super-accurate RF mechanism I might as well use it, otherwise you could do the same on an SLR.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Certainly ...

But I always encourage people to think in terms of what the distance scale on a lens presents. Once you get in the habit of thinking feet for a lens marked in feet, and meters for a lens marked in meters, it's less likely that you'll divide wrong or choose the wrong units when working in the field. Most street photography tends to happen in the 4 to 20 feet (1.2 to 6.1 m) range with a 50mm lens, so it's not like you need to remember a lot of different focus settings, not at f/5.6 to f/11 anyway.

For larger lens openings, I stick to using the rangefinder most of the time with a 50mm lens on 35mm film format. DoF gets a little too tight to cover errors in the nearer portion of this range.

Very true, and a far better way of doing it. Can take a while, though, a bit like learning to think in Celsius when you were brought up with Fahrenheit.The conversion is a stop-gap: eventually, it's just easier to think in the units on the lens.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Not to be a troll but you could also always just focus with the VF. Most people don't care that you're taking their picture, particularly if you are nice to them after. You can practice "quick-drawing." One way I've done this was pre-focusing close enough to what I would expect and meter correctly while standing on the side of the road, and I waited for cars to pass by and I'd try to shoot the driver. I got some surprisingly sharp pictures that way. I've never gotten a good picture scale focusing, then again I haven't tried enough. I just figure if I have this super-accurate RF mechanism I might as well use it, otherwise you could do the same on an SLR.

Highlights: yes, well, quite honestly, that's my logic too.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Godfrey]

Not to be a troll but you could also always just focus with the VF. ....

Of course.

Zone focusing I see as a way of being quick and being ready, for when there isn't really time to adjust focus. Some situations happen in an instant, once.. got the shot, or not.

I use zone focus for the this reason with all my cameras, regardless of type. It's the default I set the camera to between shots, just in case. I always focus as the situation permits... 🙂

 

[Monochrom]

Hi, hyperfocal in practical terms means you´re using small apertures and rather slow speeds.

The usual most known rule on hyperfocal is like sunny 16 in a 50mm lens, but as you reduce the focal length you mabe able to use a wider aperture and therefore use faster speeds.

I said that because smaller apertures may soften images due to diffraction, also if you stick to smaller apertures on a AE camera this setting will mean that sometimes your speeds will be below 125, 60, 30, etc, that for sure will result in unwanted shake on the camera...and soft images too. It doesn´t mean that you´ll get noticeable dramatic shake, but just a little is enough to soften the image...

Bye!

 

[Nomad Z]

The average rf lens is probably 40mm. At f 5.6 and focus at infinity, you are bound to resolve anything bigger than 7mm, and most objects at 5 meters or so will be completely sharp.

Unless I'm using dofmaster incorrectly (http://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html), a 40mm lens focussed on infinity and set to f5.6 has a near limit of 9.43m, so I don't see how something at 5m can be said to be "completely sharp".

What do you mean by "you are bound to resolve anything bigger than 7mm"?

 

[Ming Rider]

Not to be a troll but you could also always just focus with the VF. Most people don't care that you're taking their picture, particularly if you are nice to them after. You can practice "quick-drawing." One way I've done this was pre-focusing close enough to what I would expect and meter correctly while standing on the side of the road, and I waited for cars to pass by and I'd try to shoot the driver. I got some surprisingly sharp pictures that way. I've never gotten a good picture scale focusing, then again I haven't tried enough. I just figure if I have this super-accurate RF mechanism I might as well use it, otherwise you could do the same on an SLR.

No, I don't think you're a troll (yet😀)

The main reason for shooting zone rather than VF is a deep personal insecurity.

If I use the viewfinder and the subject spots me, I do my utmost to pretend I wasn't shooting them. As a result, the shot is lost. I have for all intents and purposes taken zilch worth keeping with the viewfinder, unless the subject is non-human, except in a few rare moments of over inflated ego.

Hence the zone focussing. Strange thing is, most of my subjects still spot the camera, yet it doesn't feel the same.

EDIT

I meant to add that I stiil compose through the viewfinder, it's just very briefly.

 

[goffer]

I think part of the problem could be my poor distance estimating skills, compounded by myself being a metric guy and the lens (Serenar 50 1.8 ) being Imperial. It can be quite a pain in the proverbial carrying out 'on the fly' calculations in order to catch that unexpected opportunity.

I tried using this as an excuse for buying a CV 50 1.5, but the wife wasn't convinced. 🙁

50 can be a bit hard to zone focus, at least for me. The focus zone is just so small compared to a 28 or even 35.

I have a tip for distance estimating skills though, I usually use the lines in the sidewalk. Over where I live, it's usually 1 meter between cracks. So when I approach a shot i usually quickly glance at the cracks and I can usually blindly zone focus my 28, then all that needs to be done is quickly glance through the VF to compose and im done.

 

[mfogiel]

I find this article to be quite helpful in making understand this issue:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/digital focusing 2.shtml
And going back to my previous statement, these are examples of correctly zone focused photos, that came out blurred because of insufficient shutter speed:

28mm

20098127 by mfogiel, on Flickr

28mm

20120914 by mfogiel, on Flickr

and these are examples of photos shot on a high shutter speed with focus set to infinity

50mm

20093615 by mfogiel, on Flickr

35mm

07110410 by mfogiel, on Flickr

28mm


20100413 by mfogiel, on Flickr

 

[gsgary]

When shooting like this on the street i always use iso400 film F8-11 10 feet and spot meter my hand for shutter speed usually above 1/250