secrets to finding hyperfocal distance.

I came across this interesting tutorial on how to find the hyperfocal distance using the Canon 5D Mark II without resorting to DOF charts and optical range finders. I'm interested in learning your favorite method of finding the HF distance. It's a particularly troublesome task since zoom lenses do not have precise distance index marks.

http://www.ianplant.co​m …ew-nature-photography.htm

I don't. Focusing 1/3 into the scene will result in nearly identical results.

That is the quick way I learned from Tony Sweet two weeks ago. No calculating of anything. Works for virtually any body, any lens. Either use an AF point or manually focus on something in the foreground 1/3 from the bottom of the frame. Use F16-18 and you should have sharp foreground (most important) and a background that gets softer as it recedes. This will give the impression of a sharp image front to back.

eskimochaos wrote in post #13164113
I don't. Focusing 1/3 into the scene will result in nearly identical results.

Its the method that I've used and certainly gives good results. The whole DOF chart is way overblown IMO. Used the 1/3rd technique to achieve this result at f/22. And I also don't worry too much about diffraction using a crop sensor camera.

MCAsan wrote in post #13164286
That is the quick way I learned from Tony Sweet two weeks ago. No calculating of anything. Works for virtually any body, any lens. Either use an AF point or manually focus on something in the foreground 1/3 from the bottom of the frame. Use F16-18 and you should have sharp foreground (most important) and a background that gets softer as it recedes. This will give the impression of a sharp image front to back.

I'm surprised that the focal length of the lens does not enter into the calculation.

The HFD was used as a technique when cameras didn't have auto-focus and there were far more detailed range finders on the lenses themselves.

Zivnuska wrote in post #13164389
I'm surprised that the focal length of the lens does not enter into the calculation.

Technically it does, but the 1/3 approach is just an approximation, so it doesn't matter very much what lens is being used.

the key is....there is no calulation needed (or wanted)!

Just focus on something 1/3 from bottom of the frame....not 1/3 the distance to background (there isa difference). Then use a small aperture....anywhere from f11 to f22 depending on the scene and lens being used. Heck, try shots at every aperture from F8 to 22 or higher. Remember, film is cheap!

Tsmith wrote in post #13164303
Its the method that I've used and certainly gives good results. The whole DOF chart is way overblown IMO. Used the 1/3rd technique to achieve this result at f/22. And I also don't worry too much about diffraction using a crop sensor camera.

No, its not overblown - and diffraction is every bit as much of a problem on a crop sensor as it is on a FF...if not more. I very rarely shoot at f/22 on my 5D and rarely went above f/11 on my 40D. Sufficient DOF can be achieved by using good practices (read: actually learning hyperfocal distances) using f/8-f/11, thus increasing opportunities to hand hold, stop motion (if the shot calls for it), and reduce diffraction.

Your shot is wonderfully composed and there is certainly not anything wrong with it at web sizes, but you blow that image up and hang it next to one that was properly focused using f/11 at the hyperfocal distance and the difference in quality to yours at f/22 will be PAINFULLY obvious. It may not matter to YOU, but to someone who has their photos hanging in a gallery for sale next to other work or who enteres in a competition, using the 1/3 method at f/22 will be the reason why someone buys another photographers work or your image loses the competition.

You dont have to do a calculation to do it right, either. Figure out the FL/aperture combinations you're most likely to use and print a small table to stick to your lens cap, laminate a DOF master graph and stick it in your bag, or just memorize the hyperfocal distance for a couple focal length aperture combinations and use just those, approximate if you stray from the ones you have memorized. Its not like its a digital point where its in focus when you nail it and horribly out of focus if you miss it by a fraction - just learn to approximate it and you'll be better off for it.

eskimochaos wrote in post #13164113
I don't. Focusing 1/3 into the scene will result in nearly identical results.

MCAsan wrote in post #13164286
That is the quick way I learned from Tony Sweet two weeks ago. No calculating of anything. Works for virtually any body, any lens. Either use an AF point or manually focus on something in the foreground 1/3 from the bottom of the frame. Use F16-18 and you should have sharp foreground (most important) and a background that gets softer as it recedes. This will give the impression of a sharp image front to back.

Tsmith wrote in post #13164303
Its the method that I've used and certainly gives good results. The whole DOF chart is way overblown IMO. Used the 1/3rd technique to achieve this result at f/22. And I also don't worry too much about diffraction using a crop sensor camera.

I fully agree with all of the above.

I have never once in my life used any sort of numeric depth of field (DOF) or hyperfocal distance calculator in the field when making photographs. When I was just beginning to learn about "real" photography, I occasionally referred to the markings on my lenses for depth of field approximation, but those markings were so crude I might as well have been ignoring them. The precision of today's DOF calculators is a misleading thing because there are so many factors that will change the actual depth of field in printed or displayed images that the calculator output is just plain wrong.

The primary reason that I recommend the DOF calculators such as the Online Depth of Field Calculator is because it is a good and simple-to-use training tool for new photographers so that they can understand approximately what to expect to see in their images when using different focal length, distance, and aperture combinations.

Here is my thought. First a tack sharp picture from front to back covering near, middle, and far objects is unnatural to the eye - we do not perceive scenes like that.

If you wish to have a photo that is absolutely tack sharp front to back you might as well focus-stack. Focus on the near and blend it with shots that were focused on the middle and distant ground. You can stop down to reasonable aperture - f8 so diffraction is not the limiting factor regarding sharpness. This must be done on a tripod and live view if you have it, of course. It's not applicable for all situations but will produce the sharpest images.

Yeah I no chart needed I would never teach someone to use a chart to understand either best way to learn is though images and with digital who cares how many pictures you waste learning.

SpeedyGoo wrote in post #13165250
Yeah I no chart needed I would never teach someone to use a chart to understand either best way to learn is though images and with digital who cares how many pictures you waste learning.

Wait, wut?

SpeedyGoo wrote in post #13165250
Yeah I no chart needed I would never teach someone to use a chart to understand either best way to learn is though images and with digital who cares how many pictures you waste learning.

Translation:

Yeah, I don't think a chart is needed. I would never teach someone to use a chart to understand. The best way to learn is through (taking) images. And with digital, who care how many pictures you waste learning.

If you want to research and study the area of Depth Of Field then the charts and calculators can give you a good view of how things work. And, if you really want to get "technical" with your photography well sure, you can do all the calculations you want, and nobody can tell you otherwise!

For me, for out-in-the-field photography, I find it best to have the basic understanding of things and then make decisions based on the actual scene and what I want to capture, and knowing from experience "what works". There are times when the idea of the hyperfocal distance plays a part, but just as often there are other considerations. For example, if I want a mountain peak to be of optimal sharpness, then I will get that even if it's at "infinity" and much more distant than the hyperfocal distance. The foreground will soften, but if I had shot the hyperfocal distance then despite the "theoretical" Depth Of Field I know from experience that the mountain peak would not be as crisp as I'd like.

Now, if I'm shooting a scene where I'd like the foreground as well as the background to be reasonably in focus, then it makes sense to not focus close and not to focus on infinity, but to pick a place in "the middle", and for that the hyperfocal distance can certainly work. But in the field, well, will you really be pacing out say 100 yards/meters to find that spot? I'm thinking not!