Estimating the Hyperfocal Distance for Those who actually Use it.

[xpatUSA]

I'm lazy and not particularly into extracting the maximum DOF in a landscape shot, preferring to simply focus on the most distant object and shoot. But, for closer stuff, it can pay to have a rough idea of the hyperfocal distance (Sh) for your settings. Being lazy, I don't carry 'The Tables' and, at 80, I don't remember 'The Formula' either and, even if did, using the calculator on my phone is a pain especially in bright sunlight. So, during these boring days, I've developed a Rule Of Thumb based on good works by Harold Merklinger, Richard Lyon and the classic lens formula.

All you need is your actual aperture diameter (d) and your angular visual acuity aka the DOF fraction, often said to be 1/1500 (e). The formula is Sh=d/e but it's easier to multiply by e.g. 1500 and even easier to forget the mm and say d x 1.5 - for example Sh = 6 x 1.5 = 9 meters.

I have a fixed focal length camera where it's pretty simple to do the Rule in one's head. Focal Length is 24.2mm, say 24mm. So at f/8 the aperture diameter is 24/8 = 3mm. Ergo, for someone with average vision, the Sh for 24mm and f/8 would be 3 x 1.5 = 4.5m = 15ft.

The Rule: Hyperfocal distance = focal length divided by the f-number divided by the DOF fraction.

Remember, this a quick estimate without the need for tables or formulae or apps, so don't expect super accuracy but, for me, it's "good enough for Government Work" ...

[Manfred M]

It's probably even more than good enough given the lack of accuracy of the distance markings of most lenses.

That being said, I have the Photo Pills app on my phone, so pulling that out is far simpler than going through the mental arithmetic.

[Pippan]

Some landscape photographers use an even simpler rule of thumb. Focus at double the distance of the nearest part of the scene that needs to be in reasonable focus, regardless of aperture. Evidently this results in the foreground and distant background being similarly sharp. Clearly though, a smaller aperture will result in more of the scene being sharp, at least until the effects of diffraction overwhelm things.

[Polar01]

Easy method pull out smart phone use app.

Cheers: Allan

[xpatUSA]

Easy method: pull out smart phone use app.

Cheers: Allan

Easy response: I don't have nor do I want a smart phone.

[xpatUSA]

Some landscape photographers use an even simpler rule of thumb. Focus at double the distance of the nearest part of the scene that needs to be in reasonable focus, regardless of aperture.

Hmm, Greg ... "regardless of aperture", as in f-number? Might as well disregard focal length too then , while we're at it ...

Off to our 1000ft street now with my 8-16mm Sigma lens set to 8mm. I think I'll use f/4. Not too bothered about the first 10 meters say (33 ft), so I'll focus at 20 meters per this "even simpler rule of thumb".

Hmmm, but my desk-top calculator says that the hyperfocal distance is about 1 meter for those settings on my 1.7 crop DSLR. On the other hand, my rule of thumb gives 3 meters, a tad closer to 1 than 20 methinks, LOL.

Evidently this results in the foreground and distant background being similarly sharp. Clearly though, a smaller aperture will result in more of the scene being sharp, at least until the effects of diffraction overwhelm things.

[Manfred M]

Easy response: I don't have nor do I want a smart phone.

Luddite?

[Manfred M]

Some landscape photographers use an even simpler rule of thumb. Focus at double the distance of the nearest part of the scene that needs to be in reasonable focus, regardless of aperture. Evidently this results in the foreground and distant background being similarly sharp. Clearly though, a smaller aperture will result in more of the scene being sharp, at least until the effects of diffraction overwhelm things.

Greg - talk to the landscape photographers working on higher end landscapes and they will often tell you that they focus stack. The current trend in that genre is to have absolutely everything in the image sharp; from foreground through to the background.

[Pippan]

Hmm, Greg ... "regardless of aperture", as in f-number? Might as well disregard focal length too then , while we're at it ...

Off to our 1000ft street now with my 8-16mm Sigma lens set to 8mm. I think I'll use f/4. Not too bothered about the first 10 meters say (33 ft), so I'll focus at 20 meters per this "even simpler rule of thumb".

Hmmm, but my desk-top calculator says that the hyperfocal distance is about 1 meter for those settings on my 1.7 crop DSLR. On the other hand, my rule of thumb gives 3 meters, a tad closer to 1 than 20 methinks, LOL.

Yes, those landscape photographers would say disregard the focal length too.

For your 1000ft street, if you're not bothered by acceptable focus for the first 10 meters, why would you focus at 1 metre, or 3 metres? If you focus at 20 metres, the distant background will be sharper than it would be if you focused at 1 metre or 3 metres, although at 8mm focal length the difference would be small.

[Pippan]

Greg - talk to the landscape photographers working on higher end landscapes and they will often tell you that they focus stack. The current trend in that genre is to have absolutely everything in the image sharp; from foreground through to the background.

Yes that is true. Focus stacking works well for scenes in which nothing is moving.

[pnodrog]

What's wrong with using the DOF preview button and manual focus? ..... Like the old days.....

[xpatUSA]

Yes, those landscape photographers would say disregard the focal length too.

Eek! I was kidding!!

For your 1000ft street, if you're not bothered by acceptable focus for the first 10 meters, why would you focus at 1 metre, or 3 metres?

Never said I would. You're the person telling me what distance to focus at i.e. twice the the distance of the nearest object of interest. I just picked a number (10m) out of the air. Actually, the only object of any interest up our street is at about 500 ft, say 150m, so maybe I should focus at the end of the street in accordance with your simpler rule-of-thumb.

If you focus at 20 metres, the distant background will be sharper than it would be if you focused at 1 metre or 3 metres, although at 8mm focal length the difference would be small.

Thank you for Focusing 101 ...

Harold would be proud of you:

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/TIAOOFe.pdf

[tao2]

What's wrong with using the DOF preview button and manual focus? ..... Like the old days.....

Aaaahh... Wisdom ...in a sea of acronyms...

[Manfred M]

What's wrong with using the DOF preview button and manual focus? ..... Like the old days.....

Even in the "old days" I found this method a bit hit and miss. While it gave a high level view; the small image seen through the viewfinder and the darkness of the ground glass screen when the lens was stopped down meant that one could not really tell if the image was sharp or not. There were too many times that the problem was not evident until the negative was in the enlarger.

I found that DoF and hyperfocal tables tended to be much more reliable and in the absence of those, the DoF markings on the lens usually sufficed. The "rule of thumb" with that method was to shoot conservatively by shooting with a 1-stop smaller aperture just to be on the safe side. If one set the focus to give the desired DoF at f/8 one would actually use f/11 for the shot.

[xpatUSA]

I found that DoF and hyperfocal tables tended to be much more reliable and in the absence of those, the DoF markings on the lens usually sufficed. The "rule of thumb" with that method was to shoot conservatively by shooting with a 1-stop smaller aperture just to be on the safe side. If one set the focus to give the desired DoF at f/8 one would actually use f/11 for the shot.

I am fortunate in that respect. I have a built-in "latitude" due to a) poor eyesight and b) only viewing on a "2K" monitor (i.e. not the classic 8x10" print viewed under perfect lighting at exactly 25cm). So, the conventional DOF is already increased for me due the widely-used fraction 1/1500 being more like 1/800 which means a bigger CoC and therefore more DOF.

[xpatUSA]

Although DOF is an interesting subject technically I admit to flying mostly by the seat of my pants.

Whereas DOF discussions can get detailed down to the nearest millimeter, the plain fact of the matter is that the actually perceived DOF is wildly variable depending on many viewing factors, e.g. smartphone versus 8K monitor, print viewed from anything but the "correct" distance or similarly zoomed in and out on your screen ... and more - such as my myopic vision versus eagle-eyes.

[Manfred M]

I am fortunate in that respect. I have a built-in "latitude" due to a) poor eyesight and b) only viewing on a "2K" monitor (i.e. not the classic 8x10" print viewed under perfect lighting at exactly 25cm). So, the conventional DOF is already increased for me due the widely-used fraction 1/1500 being more like 1/800 which means a bigger CoC and therefore more DOF.

Although DOF is an interesting subject technically I admit to flying mostly by the seat of my pants.

Whereas DOF discussions can get detailed down to the nearest millimeter, the plain fact of the matter is that the actually perceived DOF is wildly variable depending on many viewing factors, e.g. smartphone versus 8K monitor, print viewed from anything but the "correct" distance or similarly zoomed in and out on your screen ... and more - such as my myopic vision versus eagle-eyes.

You may have that Ted, but some of us do not; regardless of what the eyesight is doing.

As a large format printer; A2 / 17" x 22" and pixel peepers getting their noses right up close, I have little margin of error.

Most minor DoF issues can be hidden in a smaller size display.

[rpcrowe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY1bLdeBN_U

[Manfred M]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY1bLdeBN_U

That method works for any mirrorless camera or DSLR with LiveView.

The only risk with the technique he demonstrates is the the foreground might end up being soft, depending on the magnification (focal length) of the lens. Lower risk with a wide and angle and a higher risk with a longer focal length lens. That's why I prefer hyperfocal distance charts.

[pnodrog]

The main reason I am considering mirrorless is the ability to see the focus range on a brighter screen. When including a close foreground point of interest even with a slightly wide angle lens stopped down to say f8 or f11 I find I may need to compromise on the sharpness of the most distant parts of the scene to retain the sharpness I want in the foreground. So I am often focusing closer than the true hypofocal distance and so in most cases the reverse of method shown in the video is what I would use. Focus on the closest subject then move focus point away until the closest subject just starts to soften then either stop down another stop or bring the focus closer a fraction.