Cameras should display DOF in viewfinder IMHO

[Ken MT]

This makes me think, what is the DOF of the human eye at normal light levels?

[dubaiphil]

Well there's no harm in bracketing by aperture. Then you'd be sure to get the DoF that you want.

Or just shooting off a frame and checking on the LCD - it's free, after all

Or using Live View

Or using the EVF, if you're suitably equipped

But then by practicing, trial and error, and getting to know your equipment, you'll get a feel for what you need before you shoot. Different lenses will exhibit different characteristics and getting to know them will help greatly.

e.g. there's no point focusing up close on a subject with the Nikkor 50mm f1.2 at f1.2 if you want to throw your background out of focus and have a bitingly sharp subject (well focus point, because at f1.2 not a lot of a subject will be in focus) as it tends to render in a more dreamy way wide open. Stopping down to f2 will bring out the sharpness and still retain a creamy background. So then what's the point of getting a Nikkor 50mm f1.2? That's another question, but if you like it's characteristics you'd buy one. And can hack the Manual Focus...

[Stagecoach]

Phil,

Of course what you say are options that we all use at times to assist in getting the DOF result we want.

In a similar way we could also use the same options to assist in getting exposure as we want but the manufacturers have added the histogram tool to assist us with this if we want to use it.

[William W]

Apropos DoF for a lot of Photography (i.e. people) - there's really no need to consider getting to know the lens or to use trial and error, either.

As previously mentioned, knowing the DoF for three main Shots (i.e. Framings); and three key Apertures for each Orientation, is all that is required for 99% of Portraiture - to be assured that the shot will be "safe".

WW

[MrB]

Very good idea, well done. - much more useful than "wifi"
WW

Although I agree with the DoF idea, I think that wifi would be a great feature to have available, as it has such interesting potential. There would be the simplicity of file transfer to a computer, or to other people via the Internet. In some situations, and not just in a studio, it could be useful to be able to instantly review a decent size image, with screen-swipe zooming (e.g. to clearly show the DoF), on easily portable tablets like the iPad or Nexus, without trailing wires. If it hasn't already been done, it should also be relatively easy for the software boffins to implement real-time wifi Live View on such a tablet, or even offer total camera control from the tablet - untethered tethering, wherever you are shooting.

Philip

[William W]

. . . that comment was a tad tongue in cheek - not meant to malign 'wifi' but rather to put it in the same category as the 'times it would be used'.

Data send on-site, is valuable: especially for on-site printing.

WW

[jcuknz]

When I use my legacy Pentax f/1.4 lens on my Olympus E-PL1 and switch from auto to manual on the lens to use a small aperture the image in the EVF suddenly becomes 'all sharp' and with a slight delay is just as bright as before when it displayed the limited f/1.4 DoF. I guess DSLRs still have a way to go to catch up probably cannot until they get EVF instead of OVF

[revi]

When I use my legacy Pentax f/1.4 lens on my Olympus E-PL1 and switch from auto to manual on the lens to use a small aperture the image in the EVF suddenly becomes 'all sharp' and with a slight delay is just as bright as before when it displayed the limited f/1.4 DoF. I guess DSLRs still have a way to go to catch up probably cannot until they get EVF instead of OVF

1- there are DLSRs (or equivalent) with EVF: the recent Sony models
2- perhaps there are reasons why DSLRs are still popular, even though you don't like them...

[jcuknz]

1- there are DLSRs (or equivalent) with EVF: the recent Sony models
2- perhaps there are reasons why DSLRs are still popular, even though you don't like them...

They have had the advantage of massive advertising and being hard working professional tools which I would choose of neccessity if I was still working .... just as I used Leica, Linhoff etc in my working days but left them for a more advanced Japanese camera with features I wanted .... but for the average amateur no thankyou ... this is the digital age and they are made over dinosaurs from film that the pro HAS to put up with.

[dubaiphil]

Perhaps stepping out of retirement and into product development is on the cards then

[William W]

[Scott Stephen]

Andrew,

You make valid points but as an 'aid' to the photographer it could offer exactly the same info as what we get when inputting the same figures into a DOF calculator or chart. Calculator input = aperture, lens focal length, distance. Output = DOF with near and far figures.

An electronic version of the markings we used to have on the lens barrel.

Yes. That is what I meant. I would like to see just the total depth of field displayed. Showing all 3 numbers would make it cluttered and all I really wanted was a reminder that my DOF on this focus lock is 7.2 feet, or 0.4 feet or 358 feet, or whatever.

[Mark Treen]

I assumed the OP meant a numerical display in the LED viewfinder - that was implied by the Header Title of the thread.

WW

Gotcha WW. I totally misread what he was asking.

[dubaiphil]

Yes. That is what I meant. I would like to see just the total depth of field displayed. Showing all 3 numbers would make it cluttered and all I really wanted was a reminder that my DOF on this focus lock is 7.2 feet, or 0.4 feet or 358 feet, or whatever.

Fuji's implementation of this when using Manual Focus is intuitive and clutter free....

[William W]

This makes me think, what is the DOF of the human eye at normal light levels?

Quite large.

If for example viewing (i.e. 'focussed on') a Subject about 12 feet away from us - we have using BOTH eyes, approximately the equivalent of a 24mm lens on a 135 Format camera working at around F/4~5.6ish.

But it's really a trick question that you ask.

The brain interprets the information and accordingly each eye (and both eyes working in unison) do NOT act as an extraordinary zoom lens making a 2 dimensional image. After the brain's 'intervention', each eye resolves only a small portion of the total scene at any one moment in time.

Also, we resolve different levels of contrast, colour and detail, under different lighting conditions.

So as we "finally see the scene" - it appears (to us) that the DoF is actually very shallow.

WW

[jcuknz]

I quietly smile when I read " we have using BOTH eyes, approximately the equivalent of a 24mm lens on a 135 Format camera working at around F/4~5.6ish. " becuase long ago I realised that we only see the 'whole picture' becuase our brain assembles numerous tight views, perhaps such as an APS-C 400mm lens would give you, using the difference between the two eyes and a learnt appreciation of how subjects look at different distances to view any scene for depth perception. Perifial vision also helps the compilation but we see juist a single key when it is about twelve inches from the eye and until one moved the eye the DoF is minimal, less than the depth of three keys if that when the board is tilted to view across the keys.

[William W]

^

Hi JC,

Yes I was very careful to mention “both eyes” and link that to “approximately the equivalent of a 24mm lens on a 135 Format camera working at around F/4~5.6ish.”, lest I incur the argument of the “Standard Lens being . . . 50mm . . . 43mm”.

I was also very careful to include “the brain” as the processor – that is - it is processing what we actually “see”.

IF we took an human eye and used it as a lens and camera, sans brain, my answer to how big a DoF in normal light, would be just my first sentence: “Quite large”.

Glad that you smiled.

WW

[chauncey]

I, on the other hand, don't care what the focusing distance happens to be...just want it nailed.