kanzlr Posted January 27, 2012 Share #21 Posted January 27, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) if shooting wide open I focus with the subject centered. You can crop away the obscene amount of mega pixels later on anyway Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 Hi kanzlr, Take a look here accurate focus wide open and recomposing. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
stump4545 Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share #22 Posted January 27, 2012 if i shoot most of my subjects at under 8ft, would it make sense for me to leave my lenses at their shortest focusing distance as a standard? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted January 28, 2012 Share #23 Posted January 28, 2012 if i shoot most of my subjects at under 8ft, would it make sense for me to leave my lenses at their shortest focusing distance as a standard? I don't think so. Look at the focusing ring on your lenses and see where the mid-point is in their focusing movement. If it's the 1.5 meter mark, that's about 4.5 feet. Are most of your subjects nearer or farther than 4.5 feet? If farther, then you'll have less to turn if you start at infinity. Starting at closest means your starting from a range that requires more precision and moving to a range that requires less precision. For me the opposite works better. I would rather start at the far range and gradually move to greater precision. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stump4545 Posted January 28, 2012 Author Share #24 Posted January 28, 2012 is focusing and recomposing with the .95 wide open at 8ft a lost cause or will leaning the camera body in after recomposing solve this issue for the most part? subject at 8ft about 6in lean in to compensate or will this still be hit or miss? thanks Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 28, 2012 Share #25 Posted January 28, 2012 ok, say i am shooting with the .95 wide open and my subject is at 6ft away (as this is how i shot a lot of times) when i focus and recompose is it safe to say that my focus accuracy will be hit or miss at best? up to this point i was just thinking i missed focus but i am now thinking that it is the recomposing that is messing me up with the .95 wide open at under 8ft. Not hit and miss. Trainig will make perfect. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 28, 2012 Share #26 Posted January 28, 2012 (edited) Much easier to use an SLR, though. This thread has cured me of a small niggle of gear lust and has saved me about two and a half grand. Worth the subscription, all on its own Edited January 28, 2012 by andybarton Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted January 28, 2012 Share #27 Posted January 28, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Some observations I've made which may be helpful to some. Firstly, the 1.4 summilux 50 at 1.4 focused at its minimum distance of 70cm gives you (from memory) 15mm of DoF. The 0.95 noctilux at it's closest distance of 1m and wide open gives you 18mm of DoF. Stands to reason but interesting that the lux can give you a thinner DoF than the famous uber lens. Further, changing the focus distance has a much more significant impact on DoF than changing the aperture. If I move back to 1m with the summilux my 15mm goes to something like 30mm, moving to 1.4m (good to remember f/1.4 @ 1.4m) I'll get around 60mm which incidently will cover most of the mask of the face. In low light especially where I can't afford to close down the aperture to 5.6 to get the full face in focus a movement back of 70cm achieves the same whilst only changing the POV of the shot. This has resulted in my shooting being kind of "shutter speed for movement, aperture and ISO for exposure and distance for DoF." Lastly the advice to "shift back slightly" I have found to be close to practically useless. As pointed out it depends on lens but mostly you're talking tiny movements. Coupled with subject movements it's hit and miss at very best. Far from predictable. If you mount the camera on a fluid head tripod and shoot your child watching TV (very still! =) you will find that even at the worst case 50mm @f/1.4 at 70cm you can easily focus on one eye, recompose and shoot and get an amazing hit rate of in focus images. The circle of refocus from the barnack program holds true, and this dispite rotating around the sensor axis and not the pupil axis. Now do the same without the tripod trying not to move, way worse hit rate. Now try without tripod and moving back slightly - worse still. Now try no tripod, moving back and child moving normally - fuggedaboutit!! This testing has led me to believe that if you're needing to worry about the focus shift of recomposing the most critical variables are your and your subjects movements. You move 8mm you subject 8mm and you've lost the shot. EIGHT mm either way!? So I lock my camera movement on a tripod and ask my subject to hold still. The "shift back" method for me is next to useless and unreliable. I'd rather move back 30cm. These are my own, subjective, personal findings. 2 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted January 28, 2012 Share #28 Posted January 28, 2012 (edited) Bit "out there" but why can't the focus patch be bigger? I had a dream a couple weeks ago where I was using an M camera and it had an extra focus patch. One for Portrait rotation which was to the side of centre. I woke up wondering if it were possible. i guess it's already been thought of before though... Edited January 28, 2012 by Paul J Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stump4545 Posted January 28, 2012 Author Share #29 Posted January 28, 2012 so is best bet to combat recomposing issues to lean back and practicing i guess? is there an online chart or guide that would list common subject distances and provide approx lean back distances as a guide? thanks for all the great advice! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stump4545 Posted January 30, 2012 Author Share #30 Posted January 30, 2012 is tweaking the focus ring a bit after achieving ideal focus to compensate a good idea? or just stick to practicing leaning back after achieving ideal focus? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Gunst Lund Posted January 30, 2012 Share #31 Posted January 30, 2012 is tweaking the focus ring a bit after achieving ideal focus to compensate a good idea? or just stick to practicing leaning back after achieving ideal focus? Sorry, but if you're still referring to the initial question with f/1.4 and 4 ft. then forget about turning the focus ring to focus blind or leaning back, it is hit and miss. Get another type of camera than a range finder, you can choose S or R if you want to stick with the Leica family, or stop the lens down... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Gunst Lund Posted January 30, 2012 Share #32 Posted January 30, 2012 I had a dream a couple weeks ago where I was using an M camera and it had an extra focus patch. One for Portrait rotation which was to the side of centre. I woke up wondering if it were possible. i guess it's already been thought of before though... Sure that would be possible, you need one more range finder window and distance mechanics, the frame lines can be reused, the extra window should be at the base just underneath the frame line selector, the body would have to be about 5-10mm higher to get enough distance between the windows of the range finder. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted January 30, 2012 Share #33 Posted January 30, 2012 Erik - what about keeping the existing centre patch but that patch being significantly larger? Theoretical though it is, I'm interested if there is a optio/mechanical limitation to the patches size and, indeed, why it is the size it is? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Gunst Lund Posted January 30, 2012 Share #34 Posted January 30, 2012 The large area central patch idea is only usable with a perfectly corrected flat field lens, so not relevant for most lenses, also the patch greatly reduces the ability to see details of the scene where things are not in focus. on a matte screen in a SLR it is less difficult... So size is chosen from a minimum area perspective for the current Leica M patches, if it was larger it would be to imprecise. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 30, 2012 Share #35 Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) This thread could raise one's anxiety level. A laugh, anyone? Two focus methods I prefer. The first is the Marine Drill Sargent method, "MARINE! You WILL be in focus! Understood?" (Does not work with rocks, trees or Regular Army Clowns.) The other is to tie a string - length to perfect focus point - to a tripod screw in the base-plate. Tell the subject to put the other end to her near cheek bone (whatever). Then say, "I just paid $10,000 for this lens, and listen to that Sargent." (I'm up late watching a James Bond movie. Edited January 30, 2012 by pico Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stump4545 Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share #36 Posted January 31, 2012 ok so i know i must compensate for recomposing by lean back etc.., but just wondering in real life is this something that those shooting wide open on fast glass 24/7 have learned that you must do, or is compensating by leaning back not an all the time thing? leaning back if you remember, or if you have the time... or is it something that skilled guys just do 24/7 as per of their technique? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Gunst Lund Posted January 31, 2012 Share #37 Posted January 31, 2012 ok so i know i must compensate for recomposing by lean back etc.., but just wondering in real life is this something that those shooting wide open on fast glass 24/7 have learned that you must do, or is compensating by leaning back not an all the time thing? leaning back if you remember, or if you have the time... or is it something that skilled guys just do 24/7 as per of their technique? No Professional or sane 24/7 amateur would relay on shooting without focus aid at f1.4 at 4 ft distance, where did you get that idea? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrozenInTime Posted January 31, 2012 Share #38 Posted January 31, 2012 The cinema world has a sure fire solution to the problem :-) Focus puller | Flickr - Photo Sharing! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stump4545 Posted February 2, 2012 Author Share #39 Posted February 2, 2012 when will the problems with recomposing be most prevalent when subjects are 3ft, 6ft, or 12ft away? will i have to practice leaning back further as my subjects are an increased distance from the camera? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted February 2, 2012 Share #40 Posted February 2, 2012 Most prevalent at 3 feet, much less at 6ft, and likely not at all at 12 feet. The problem is greatest when subjects are nearest. That is when recomposing creates the biggest angle from point A to point B (or from point B to point A) in the diagram in the link above. At 12 feet, the angle is likely to be tiny, just a few degrees; for example, from a subject's head to their mid-section, — and the depth of field increases. So, as subjects get further away, it's less and less of a problem. When it stops being a problem depends on your lens, your aperture, the distance, and the degree of recomposition. With so many factors, there's no hard rule. But generally speaking, the "worst" combination is nearest distance + widest aperture + biggest recomposition. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.