Incorporating hyperfocal distance into modern DSLR's?

[crimbfighter]

Ok, so here's a thought. Since most modern DSLR's and lenses are capable of communicating electronically, is there anything from preventing manufacturers (except money and demand) from putting an option in the camera body to automatically determine which lens is on the camera (lens compatibility dependent), what aperture is selected, and automatically set the hyperfocal distance accordingly? Perhaps making it an option to set an external button on the body that will lock the lens on the hyperfocal distance, and change the focus as the aperture changes to maintain the hyperfocal distance. Or maybe once you 'activate' the hyperfocal distance setting you can't chance the aperture any more, only settings and shutter speed, until it is 'deactivated'.

I play with the hyperfocal distance on occasion, and always find it a pain to set when it's calling for a distance between the marks on the focus scale. Therefore, wouldn't it be nice if the camera could set it for us? I would also think the camera could do it more accurately when there is not mark on the focus scale for the given distance. I don't know how often others use the hyperfocal distance, but I use it enough to know that it would make my life easier.. Is it something any of you would use?

 

[Derrel]

CANON used to have an A-dep mode, which could figure out DOF. User focused on closest object, then farthest object, then the camera computed the exposure needed to achieve the required DOF. THe feature was dropped years ago, Apparently not many people used it. A-dep was right there on the exposure mode dial...for years...

 

[crimbfighter]

CANON used to have an A-dep mode, which could figure out DOF. User focused on closest object, then farthest object, then the camera computed the exposure needed to achieve the required DOF. THe feature was dropped years ago, Apparently not many people used it. A-dep was right there on the exposure mode dial...for years...

Clearly that's because Canon's system required more than one step. With today's attention spans, it can't be more that one button! :lmao: I guess that still wouldn't have solved my biggest issue, though, and that is setting the focusing distance when it's not one that's marked on the scale. And, personally, I would think it would have been easier to read a chart to determine exposure settings for a specific DOF that going through all that rigamaroo. I guess it doesn't surprise me that setting faded away.

It just seems uber helpful, to me, to be able to go out say, landscape shooting, and maybe switch from my 50 to my 35, and have a no brainer button push to re-achieve the hyperfocal distance. Plus, for lenses like my 35 f/1.8, which doesn't have a focus scale, or if someone has a kit lens, it would be the only way to set the hyperfocal distance. Now, maybe people who use the lower grade lenses that don't have focus scales wouldn't give a crapola about hyperfocal distance, but who know. Certainly not me!

 

[Derrel]

The real problem though is that hyperfocal distance really does not give us the uber-sharp images we might want to have when doing landscapes...it's close....but it ain't the whole cigar. At smallish sizes, like on web-display images, hyperfocal distance does an "okay" job. But on larger images, or those peered at at 100% pixels on big, spiffy new monitors, hyperfocal distance with even short lenses like 35 to 50mm reveals that, as always, only one,main plane is really in THE BEST focus. As megapixel counts go up and up and up, it has become easier to see this, especially when images are printed large, or viewed at high levels of magnification.

I have found that in landscape shooting, I am almost always happiest to put the "most-important" plane into the absolute best focus. And let the rest fall where it may. The preponderance of the image must be in good, sharp focus with today's 18,22,24,36 MP cameras...otherwise, the look ios not very pleasing.

Focus stacking methods show us what deep,deep DOF with SHARP, high-resolution imaging looks like. Hyperfocal distance in my experience, is best for small images, or non-critical images. I prefer a slightly OOF foregound and then a SHARP-SHARP preponderance of the image over an image that is theoretically hyperfocally sharp. ANd since so many images are now seen on the web, I can see how it would be very handy to have a one-button ability to create hyperfocally focused shots.

 

[crimbfighter]

You make some excellent points. I'm by no means an expert in anything, especially photography, but I think maybe your point at the end is the most valid to the question at hand. Given current and future trends, the majority of digital photography (on the consumer level anyway) seems to be geared for web viewing and sharing, or for small print sizes. Perhaps it would be a popular consumer level feature. Sorta like all the jpeg and editing options built into the cameras these days.

 

[KmH]

The vast majority of DSLR sales are to consumers that have no clue, and no desire to know, what hyperfocus or DoF is.

Put it in green A mode and shoot!

 

[Garbz]

Here's a thought, what's the hyperfocal distance when using a fancy new 36mpxl DSLR? Someone with a D800 is unlikely to be satisfied with a photograph where the hyperfocal distance is set for the standard 300ppi print metric.

 

[gsgary]

It is so easy to set manually why pay for the feature,this all i use for street photography with a Leica M

 

[pgriz]

The hyperfocal distance calculation is an approximation, with assumptions about the viewing size and distance of the final image. As Derrel and Garbz noted, if the scale of the image (or its viewing resolution) exceeds what is assumed in the calculation, then the formula breaks down. As Gary has noted, hyperfocal focusing is important in certain types of photography such as street, but under those conditions, you'll probably not be so concerned about wringing out the maximum amount of high-resolution detail from the image. As Keith noted, few photographers (or if you will, users of cameras) really care about the niceties of getting proper detail from foreground to background, and for those who care, there are tools available to help in making these calculations. Heck, if you use primes, then the DOF and hyperfocal distance is already engraved on the lens barrel in the form of the aperture scale.

 

[crimbfighter]

(or if you will, users of cameras)

This made me laugh!

I guess I can see why it wouldn't be as sought after of a feature as I initially thought. I guess if it wasn't a huge feat of computer programming, it would be a cool feature to have, but it probably wouldn't gain a ton of traction with regard to real world application.. Oh well, on to the next crackpot idea!

 

[Garbz]

The programming is dead simple. The application is difficult as it involves different perceptions of what is "sharp".

 

[Helen B]

The idea that maximum acceptable circle of confusion (MACC) is not fixed for a given format (that is what we are talking about here) is not new, and it predates both digital photography and the use of digital computers (in the broadest sense) for routine DoF calcs. The analogue Samuelson DoF calculator allowed you to choose your MACC, for example. It would be trivial to include choice of MACC as a menu option.

The DoF markings on manual focus lenses assume a certain fixed MACC. I know that it is easy to use another MACC with a tiny amount of mental arithmetic, but many people are happy to use the markings as they are. What is the problem with replacing the mental arithmetic with a menu option for those of us who use different MACCs for different purposes?

 

[pgriz]

The idea that maximum acceptable circle of confusion (MACC) is not fixed for a given format (that is what we are talking about here) is not new, and it predates both digital photography and the use of digital computers (in the broadest sense) for routine DoF calcs. The analogue Samuelson DoF calculator allowed you to choose your MACC, for example. It would be trivial to include choice of MACC as a menu option.

The DoF markings on manual focus lenses assume a certain fixed MACC. I know that it is easy to use another MACC with a tiny amount of mental arithmetic, but many people are happy to use the markings as they are. What is the problem with replacing the mental arithmetic with a menu option for those of us who use different MACCs for different purposes?

Helen, what would you think of a camera feature by which you put in your MACC (as a custom function, maybe), and indicate on the touch screen which areas you want in focus, and the camera then computes the necessary aperture to give the necessary DOF? This would work for relatively static situations. Alternatively, one could specify the DOF desired around the focus point, and the camera would indicate the aperture needed to achieve this. Still another option would be to use the current focus point and select the hyperfocal option for the camera to indicate the appropriate aperture... Lots of ideas once you start thinking in this direction.

 

[usayit]

I don't think people know, care, or even use it if available. I was one of those that would use A-dep feature on Canon years ago on the Elans as most of my lenses lacked the scale. I also wish they would have continued to improve on eye-control focus point. Then again, I consider myself (and most here are also) the minority in the sea of consumers that purchase cameras each and every year.

 

[Mully]

Don't todays cameras have enough wheels and dials to confuse the user without adding more. What happened to just f stop, shutter speed, ASA, and focus?