pappde Posted November 20, 2009 Share #1 Posted November 20, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi List. I read with interest the responses to Reid report X1 review. Zone focusing was mentioned quite a few times. I understand the concecpt, but how would you do it on the X1? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 20, 2009 Posted November 20, 2009 Hi pappde, Take a look here Zone focusing on X1. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jamie Roberts Posted November 21, 2009 Share #2 Posted November 21, 2009 1. Set camera to f5.6 2. Set manual focus distance to 10 feet 3. Shoot (from 7 feet or so to about 30 feet). That's it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted November 21, 2009 Share #3 Posted November 21, 2009 I've been asked to write in more detail about at this (at some point) but essentially the way I zone focus, with any camera, is to manually set the camera at the distance where I want peak (true focus) to be and then let depth of field provide some definition to areas behind and ahead of that. Therefore one is changing a zone of "focus" though, strictly speaking, actual focus can only occur at one distance. Beyond that distance we have an "impression of focus" which is often good enough. I personally do not work from what is called a "hyperfocal" distance. That's a mathematical/theoretical construction that doesn't necessarily place peak focus where one wants it to fall. Working this way has long been essential to what some call "street photography". It allows one to respond instantly to the subject because there is no focusing step. The focus of the camera is already set before it comes to one's eye. It's been discussed a lot with the X1 because of this recent review but many of us zone focus with Leica Ms often. The larger the sensor or piece of film, the smaller the aperture will need to be given depth of field at a given field of view (all else being equal). With small sensor cameras, one can often get a good amount of DOF at F/4. With 4/3 or mFT it might be F/5.6. With sensors larger than that it might be F/8. With my Graphlex it was F/16. Of, course, part of this aperture choice will depend on how much depth of field one wants. It is not true that DOF extends 1/3 ahead of the focus plane and 2/3 behind. You may hear a lot about theories and calculations in response to this question. That's one way to approach the task. I would instead recommend lots of experimentation. Take your camera out and try this, use different focus distances, different apertures, etc. Effective zone focusing is what might now be called a "traditional skill" and its use becomes more and more intuitive and effective with practice. I'll write about this in an organized way once I get caught up with some reviews. But, for example, I'm shooting a wedding today and the reception pictures (especially the dancing) will all be zone focused with a 35 on the M9. I tend to work close to the dancers at my magic F/8 and the lens will usually be set at 3, 5 or 7 feet. Zone focus does not dictate your subject distance at all. One just has to realize that the closer one is focusing, the shallower the DOF will be. Jamie provides one example of a combination above and there are an infinite range of others. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pappde Posted November 21, 2009 Author Share #4 Posted November 21, 2009 Thanks Sean. I just love the way you approach photography related questions. I signed up to your review site just to get your X1 report, but since then I read quite a few other reports on the site and learned a lot about photography just by reading them and looking at the included photos. BTW if I have read only the X1 report, that alone would have worth the subscription. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted November 22, 2009 Share #5 Posted November 22, 2009 ... It is not true that DOF extends 1/3 ahead of the focus plane and 2/3 behind.... To be accurate, you would have to say that it isn't always true.... The statement is true in some but not all situations. Also, be sure to distinguish between the object distance and the image distance, since both are sometimes referred to as "the focus plane." Don't get annoyed, just agreeing that the concept of depth of field is a can of worms. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted November 22, 2009 Share #6 Posted November 22, 2009 Thanks Sean.I just love the way you approach photography related questions. I signed up to your review site just to get your X1 report, but since then I read quite a few other reports on the site and learned a lot about photography just by reading them and looking at the included photos. BTW if I have read only the X1 report, that alone would have worth the subscription. Thanks very much. I'm glad to hear it. If I were a new reader to my site, I'd be sure to read all the essays. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted November 22, 2009 Share #7 Posted November 22, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) To be accurate, you would have to say that it isn't always true.... The statement is true in some but not all situations. Also, be sure to distinguish between the object distance and the image distance, since both are sometimes referred to as "the focus plane." Don't get annoyed, just agreeing that the concept of depth of field is a can of worms. Not annoyed with this at all. "No ideas but in things" - William Carlos Williams In great respect of William's point - my best advice about zone focus and DOF is to ignore theory/calculation and go out and experiment. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coup de foudre Posted November 22, 2009 Share #8 Posted November 22, 2009 No ideas but in things" - William Carlos Williams In great respect of William's point - my best advice about zone focus and DOF is to ignore theory/calculation and go out and experiment. +1 i am always amazed at how few people are willing to do this.... excellent advice! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hexar Posted November 22, 2009 Share #9 Posted November 22, 2009 Come on dear photographers !! All tables about DOF are very usefull and 100% spot on and do keep us from havin to experiment with sensor sizes, apertures and distances !!!! This has been done for us by mathematics and telemetrics. Use the tables and hyperfocal distances in order to not having to experiment. Sorry Sean you know I appreciate your reviews and comments but in this respect I do have to disagree to the full to you opinion and point of view. I will be able to check my DOF before I go our with the tables at hand and not having to experiment with the hundreds or thousands variables here. With respect Hexar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hexar Posted November 22, 2009 Share #10 Posted November 22, 2009 Dear Sean (and others) Here is your DOF table in wich you can find your favourable F8 aperture on the M9 with 35mm (full frame) including the distances in feet you mentioned in your earlier posting ! Why experiment. Number do speak clear and sure language ! Best regards Hexar 35mm film Focal Length: 35 mm f/1.4f/2f/2.8f/4f/5.6f/8f/11f/16f/22f/32Distance (feet)NearFarNearFarNearFarNearFarNearFarNearFarNearFarNearFarNearFarNearFar10.991.010.991.010.981.020.971.030.961.040.951.060.931.080.901.120.871.180.831.2721.962.041.952.061.922.081.892.121.852.171.802.251.732.381.632.581.522.931.383.6432.913.092.883.142.833.192.763.282.673.422.563.622.413.972.234.582.025.851.789.6543.844.173.784.253.704.363.584.523.444.783.255.213.015.952.737.462.4211.62.075654.755.274.665.394.535.584.365.854.146.303.877.063.548.513.1612.02.7428.62.31∞65.656.405.526.585.346.855.107.284.817.984.449.254.0111.93.5220.23.0110032.49∞76.537.556.357.806.118.195.818.815.429.874.9611.94.4316.73.8439.43.24∞2.65∞87.398.737.169.076.869.606.4810.56.0012.05.4415.14.8023.94.121373.43∞2.77∞98.239.937.9510.47.5811.17.1112.26.5414.45.8819.25.1436.14.37∞3.60∞2.88∞109.0611.28.7111.78.2712.67.7214.27.0617.26.2924.45.45614.59∞3.75∞2.98∞1210.713.710.214.69.5916.08.8618.67.9924.17.0241.35.99∞4.96∞3.99∞3.13∞1412.216.411.617.710.819.89.9023.98.8333.87.65826.44∞5.27∞4.19∞3.24∞1613.719.212.921.012.024.110.930.49.5848.68.213116.83∞5.52∞4.34∞3.34∞1815.122.214.224.613.128.911.738.610.3748.70∞7.17∞5.74∞4.48∞3.41∞2016.525.315.428.414.134.512.549.210.91259.14∞7.46∞5.93∞4.59∞3.48∞3022.843.820.75418.48115.927913.3∞10.8∞8.51∞6.57∞4.96∞3.69∞4028.16925.19921.725318.3∞14.9∞11.8∞9.16∞6.94∞5.17∞3.80∞5032.810628.719624.4∞20.1∞16.1∞12.6∞9.59∞7.19∞5.30∞3.87∞7541.935835.4∞29.1∞23.2∞18.0∞13.7∞10.2∞7.54∞5.50∞3.97∞10048.7∞40.1∞32.2∞25.1∞19.2∞14.4∞10.6∞7.73∞5.60∞4.02∞∞95∞67∞47.5∞33.6∞23.8∞16.9∞12.0∞8.49∞6.04∞4.30∞Hyperfocal Distance956747.533.623.816.912.08.496.044.30 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coup de foudre Posted November 22, 2009 Share #11 Posted November 22, 2009 my head just exploded... ta. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hexar Posted November 22, 2009 Share #12 Posted November 22, 2009 Oeps !! that doesnt`t do with copy and past ! Below the internet link were you can find what I wanted to show Just fill in 35mm film and 35mm lens and you will see what I wanted to show. Have fun ! Hexar Depth of Field Table Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hexar Posted November 22, 2009 Share #13 Posted November 22, 2009 I just saw that you can even choose your M9 as a specific camera in the DOF calculation link I have just sent. Sean so more precise you cannot go I asssume . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hexar Posted November 22, 2009 Share #14 Posted November 22, 2009 That`s painfull COUP DE FOUDRE ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hexar Posted November 22, 2009 Share #15 Posted November 22, 2009 Withour experimenting I can read from the table that with the M9 and 35mm lens I will have a DOF with F8 between 4.96 and 11.9 feet ( 1.51 - 3.63 metres) Beyond these disances your subject will not be in focus (sharp for the human eye) Ofcourse as Sean says there is always only one HOTSPOT in focus but for the human eye these distances are considered SHARP . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hexar Posted November 22, 2009 Share #16 Posted November 22, 2009 As far as HYPERFOCAL distance is concerned. this is the distance at a given aperture for a given lens at wich the largest DOF is obtained. Very usefull as it gives us a larger DOF than just tuning to "infinity". Not precisely, but as a rule of thumb you could say at 1/3 of the hyperfocal distance the DOF starts . (till infinity) Very fine knowledge to work with in case you want a shot with the largest DOF in a picture possible for your lens at give aperture. Sean admitted earlier on that he is a agnost in respect of HYPERFOCAL distance but I think this does not imply that this knowledge is useless in our daily photography. (you can also find this out by experimenting ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hexar Posted November 22, 2009 Share #17 Posted November 22, 2009 SEAN SAID : "Zone focus does not dictate your subject distance at all " I don`t know what you are saying today SEAN but ofcourse it does ! You have to adjust your ZONE FOCUS all the time as soon as you go beyond the DOF distance indicated by the tables. In you example of the wedding you will have to reset your ZONE focus (for example in case you have set it at 7 feet at F8) at the very moment you change your subject distance beyond 1,5 and 3.6 metres. Again I really don`t want to be offending and all I say is not meant like that but I really do not understand your words today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hexar Posted November 22, 2009 Share #18 Posted November 22, 2009 For anyone who wants to copy SEAN`s settings for a wedding at 7 feet with the LEICA X1 at F8 your DOF will be 4.14 feet ( 1,34 metres) till 16.9 feet (5,15 metres). This will save you from experimenting and shows you the advantage in DOF (or disadvantage depending how you see this) of a smaller sensor than full frame. At weddings though the light is mostly not very good indoors so I would consider a wider aperture and other distances settings. This is why I would like to see LEICA to increase their MF distance pre-sets at least to 5 metres in no more than 1 metre steps. (like the RICOH people do, and they really know what a street shooter want with manual focus and distance scales in order to be fast with their focus) In short , there are good ways to go around slow AF but you have to know well your theory about pre distance settings and DOF scales otherwise you are LOST I am not as known as SEAN REID and maybe quite direct in my words but you can sleep on these words and come back to me if you buy the X1 and start using it in case the software does not change from the pre-production units as reveiwed by Sean Reid. I don`t want to bash the camera ( I am looking for a well worked out concept like the LEICA X1 ) but I want to help people with my knowledge and avoid disapointments among potential buyers. Again soccer mom with this camera in her LUIS VUTTON bag will never be disapointed because she is shooting with a LEICA but those people that drop 2000 Dollar for this instrument should get what the price stands for and that is a tool for photographers . From what I have seen it this not achieved yet. Don`t start saying now that I should buy a RICOH and shut up because in the RICOH camera`s there are also enough issues that keep me from buying it but I want a DIGITAL KONICA HEXAR AF and gets frustrated by non delivery from the industry. Sorry for that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted November 22, 2009 Share #19 Posted November 22, 2009 SEAN SAID :"Zone focus does not dictate your subject distance at all " I don`t know what you are saying today SEAN but ofcourse it does ! I believe you misunderstood me. It simply means that one can try to zone focus at any distance (though at close distances it gets difficult). As for the tables and so forth...if they help you, enjoy and use them. People who like that approach can find many interesting threads here about DOF, COC, etc. Meanwhile, I'm still with Williams on this. But that doesn't mean anyone else needs to be. BTW, with dancers at weddings I normally shoot with bounced flash - the more juice the better. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hexar Posted November 22, 2009 Share #20 Posted November 22, 2009 Thanks Sean , Bounced flash is soo much better than "straight in the face" (the light must have something to "bounce" on ofcourse) Any response re MF distance scale to be expected in final LEICA x1 version Sean ? Regards Hexar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.