Jump to content

Infinity Setting


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Mostly new to Leica Rangefinder cameras. So to set a rangefinder to infinity, is that the same as setting it to hyperlocal

distance ?

So if I set my M240 with 50mm summicron to F16 or F8  and the  infinity mark to the corresponding mark on the fixed ring

(16 or 8)  should the image in the viewfinder patch be perfectly aligned ?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No,

the RF patch setting/focus/alignment is independent of lens and aperture setting on the lens.

 

That is the main advantage of RF focussing on SLR where the accuracy is dependent of lens focal length and "open" aperture.

 

Hyperfocal setting can be used of course, but there is other better way to use RF,

RF focus on main subject then turn the read distance to the f number used then judge if the infinity is within the other side.

 

:rolleyes:

Myself M practice, as I don't like "hyperfocal thing", I just use the RF focussing on main subject,

then let the other distance subjects fall where they can with the "f setting" to have/or not this famous 3D sense -_-.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hyperfocal or 'zone' focusing can be done with any lens on any type of camera as long as the appropriate distance scales are marked on the lens barrel. The concept is based on the idea that there is a predictable range of focus distances in which a subject will appear as "acceptably sharp" in the photographic image. The limits of the acceptably sharp zone will vary depending on the aperture of the lens... narrow range with a large aperture and wide range with a small aperture. The concept of acceptable sharpness was established way back in fuzzy analog times and may no longer be as acceptable to digital pixel peepers, but you will have to be the judge.

 

With a Leica M, set the lens focus ring to the distance at which you are most likely to find a subject, perhaps 12 feet for street photography. The depth-of-field scales near the flange of the lens will indicate the corresponding minimum and maximum acceptable focus distances at all the f-stops. In the case of a hyperfocal setting at 12 feet on a 28mm Elmarit, the closest acceptable focus at f-stop 5.6 will be about 7 feet and the furthest will be almost infinity. With a 35mm Summicron, the same setting of 12 feet at f5.6 would give a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 30 feet. If you want more depth of field, go to f8 or f11. If your likely subjects will be fairly close, there's no need to keep infinity at one end of the range... a hyperfocal setting of 6 feet at f5.6 will give a range from 4.5 to 9 feet on the 28mm Elmarit.

 

That's all there is to it. You're done with focusing until your shooting conditions change. Ignore the rangefinder, adjust the shutter speed for lighting variations and keep your fingers off the focus ring to avoid disturbing the distance setting.

Edited by Lee Rust
Link to post
Share on other sites

DOF scale on the lens is for moderate enlargement (around A4) and not for pixel peeping at 1:1 zoom. If you are using DOF scale to do zone focusing then keep your final output size in mind.

 

 

I'm an old film guy and use the DOF scale for zone focusing only occasionally with digital.
In the days of film I used zone focusing a great deal and found it completely reliable no matter the print size

I learned with film 40 years ago, It seems to work the same with digital?

Can you explain why the end print size should matter with digital and not with film ?
 
As an example:
Using the DOF scale, as to be sure that your given  f/stop with a given focal length lens ..... everything between  say 6' to infinity is in focus, according to the scale and where you set the focus point.
 
Why does the print size matter any differently in digital?
 
Please know I'm not being snarky ... I never realized there was a difference  in DOF film vs digital.
Can you explain so that I can adjust my way of thinking about the digital capture.
 
Thanks.
 
This might be a good time for a lesson in film capture vs digital capture
 
Love this forum !!!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It’s less about DOF than it is about the flat plane of focus/sharpness, and closer tolerances, associated with a digital sensor vs thicker film, where there is more leeway for focus errors and less rapid falloff.

 

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/235134-depth-of-field-on-film-vs-digital/page-1

 

Jeff

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm an old film guy and use the DOF scale for zone focusing only occasionally with digital.

In the days of film I used zone focusing a great deal and found it completely reliable no matter the print size

I learned with film 40 years ago, It seems to work the same with digital?

Can you explain why the end print size should matter with digital and not with film ?

 

As an example:

Using the DOF scale, as to be sure that your given f/stop with a given focal length lens ..... everything between say 6' to infinity is in focus, according to the scale and where you set the focus point.

 

Why does the print size matter any differently in digital?

 

Please know I'm not being snarky ... I never realized there was a difference in DOF film vs digital.

Can you explain so that I can adjust my way of thinking about the digital capture.

 

Thanks.

 

This might be a good time for a lesson in film capture vs digital capture

 

Love this forum !!!

It is not digital vs film (let me get it out first). It is about final viewing size. Let me see if I can explain without being technical.

 

There is nothing like sharp region of in focus vs out of focus. The image on film/sensor gradually becomes less sharp for regions in front of, and behind the plane lens is focused on. Now the question is, how much of this less sharpness (or slightly blurry out of focus region) is still acceptable as “sharp”. This back and front region is DOF range.

 

Now you can see that more you enlarge, the more of this region becomes visible as out of focus (conversely in small print or small monitor more region will look like in focus). The DOF scale uses a conventional enlargement size for displaying the range (marked on lens) for which our eyes can’t tell out of focus from in focus. Double the enlargement and DOF region shrinks since now out of focus blurriness becomes bigger (I am repeating now since I want to avoid discussing technical term as circle of confusion).

 

Now back to digital vs film. On digital, it is fairly easy to zoom all the way into the picture (on film, not everybody examines each negative/slide with 10x loupe) and notice out of focus areas that may still look in-focus in final print size (or Instagram post).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not just that; film has a certain thickness, is not perfectly flat, whereas a sensor is a flat surface. That means that the sensor is sharp in one plane only, whilst film is acceptably sharp within a tolerance. Thus digital demands more precision.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Film is an analogue medium. Digital is just another medium. Both valid, both with costs and benefits.

That said, they are similar after the digital sensor was adapted to give high resolution.

 

Some prefer film but it involves a lot more chemicals. Arguably it still produces a finer image ... but you'll only know after spending time in the darkroom with potentially hazardous chemicals sloshing about.

 

Digital is instantly available by "chimping". Film takes a lot longer.

 

Great photos are produced from both media.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not just that; film has a certain thickness, is not perfectly flat, whereas a sensor is a flat surface. That means that the sensor is sharp in one plane only, whilst film is acceptably sharp within a tolerance. Thus digital demands more precision.

 

So the DOF scale on the M lenses are marked for film....and not digital ?
In a non technical world, Digital has less "acceptable sharpness"?
Where out of focus is simply out of focus?
 
So DOF on a particular lens  works the same stopping down increases sharpness....
but not as it relates to the current scale on my M lenses?
 

Is this where we are marrying an old film lens to a digital body simply for nostalgia?

Why is there not a different scale for digital ... or no scale at all?

 

Last question in a real world use, are we splitting hairs?

The current scale seems to work weather I make a 16x20 or an 8x10?

 

Thanks to all for tweaking my way of thinking.

Am I now headed in the correct direction?

Edited by ECohen
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the DOF scale is intended for film, and was defined in a time when films were thick and the average print 6x9 cm. Meaning that they are optimistic by at least one, more likely,  two stops for modern digital use. 

I must confess that I find zone misfocussing and hyperfocal distance poor substitutes for a properly focussed photograph. The image is sharp in one place only: the plane of focus. DOF is a gradual falloff of acceptable unsharpness. That begs the question: acceptable to whom?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the DOF scale is intended for film, and was defined in a time when films were thick and the average print 6x9 cm. Meaning that they are optimistic by at least one, more likely,  two stops for modern digital use. 

I must confess that I find zone misfocussing and hyperfocal distance poor substitutes for a properly focussed photograph. The image is sharp in one place only: the plane of focus. DOF is a gradual falloff of acceptable unsharpness. That begs the question: acceptable to whom?

 

Thanks !
Zone focus and a good tape measure was something I lived by in the days of film....not so much in today's digital world.
As always I so appreciate this group
Edited by ECohen
Link to post
Share on other sites

So the DOF scale on the M lenses are marked for film....and not digital ?

In a non technical world, Digital has less "acceptable sharpness"?
Where out of focus is simply out of focus? [...]

 

This has been perfectly explained by jmahto above.

The DoF scales of M lenses are marked for both film and digital for pictures viewed at an average distance, not for pixel peeping.

Those DoF scales are still published by Leica in its "Technical data" specs sheets BTW.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think "not for pixel peeping" is the salient point.   As for size of image and sharpness... that's easy to see.   When I miss focus by a slight amount I can't tell if all I'm looking at is the thumbnail on the back of the camera.   Opening the image on a larger screen (but still much smaller than maximum image resolution) clearly shows my error.  It's another reason why I turn automatic image review off -- I can't really trust what I'm seeing on such a small screen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been perfectly explained by jmahto above.

The DoF scales of M lenses are marked for both film and digital for pictures viewed at an average distance, not for pixel peeping.

Those DoF scales are still published by Leica in its "Technical data" specs sheets BTW.

 

 

Yes, the DOF scale is intended for film, and was defined in a time when films were thick and the average print 6x9 cm. Meaning that they are optimistic by at least one, more likely,  two stops for modern digital use. 

I must confess that I find zone misfocussing and hyperfocal distance poor substitutes for a properly focussed photograph. The image is sharp in one place only: the plane of focus. DOF is a gradual falloff of acceptable unsharpness. That begs the question: acceptable to whom?

 

 

OK guys ....... Which one of these statements/posts are correct ?
 
I'm not referring to pixel peeping on the LCD.
 
I am only referring to the  actual usefulness of the DOF scale that is marked on my current version of my 50mm or 35mm M lenses.
Are they accurate for Digital use or Film use? What am I missing?
 
In all honesty with digital I rarely rely on  the scale as I did with film but now that the question has come up
Is the scale accurate for film or digital or both ?... If both ....Please explain how that is possible?  
 
 
Thanks for clearing up question how is DOF different for digital vs film ( which has been cleared up by jaapv )
And how is the current scale marked on the lens used .....for both ?
 
Sorry for the late reply I have been out of town.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

OK guys ....... Which one of these statements/posts are correct ?
 
I'm not referring to pixel peeping on the LCD.
 
I am only referring to the  actual usefulness of the DOF scale that is marked on my current version of my 50mm or 35mm M lenses.
Are they accurate for Digital use or Film use? What am I missing?
 
In all honesty with digital I rarely rely on  the scale as I did with film but now that the question has come up
Is the scale accurate for film or digital or both ?... If both ....Please explain how that is possible?  
 
 
Thanks for clearing up question how is DOF different for digital vs film ( which has been cleared up by jaapv )
And how is the current scale marked on the lens used .....for both ?
 
Sorry for the late reply I have been out of town.

 

The scale is still the historical film one. So are the tables.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

ap·prox·i·mate

adjective

əˈpräksəmət/Submit

1.

close to the actual, but not completely accurate or exact.

"the calculations are very approximate"

synonyms: estimated, rough, imprecise, inexact, indefinite, broad, loose; informalballpark

"approximate dimensions"

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...