Possible to recompose without messing up focus plane?

[AperturePriority]

Ah.. I just put the green line there to make it easier to see how the focus spot moves away from the subject, didn't even think about that being the plane too.. heh, heh.. but i guess it'd be something like this. I could make a cleaner version, but I closed that illustrator file already and didn't save it.. gotta get back to work anyway.

View attachment 7112

I think what you bhop miss here is the the plane of focus is considered as flat but itn't. It's a sphere equidistant from the sensor. You can only consider it is a flat plane in cases of the long tele focal lenses which have narrow FoV and closing the apertures down.

For the landscape photos, mostly people use normal or wide-angle lens which have wide FoV. In such a case, the plane of focus is a REAL SPHERE EQUIDISTANT FROM THE SENSOR, it isn't a flat plane anymore. Specially, when one wide-opens a normal or a wide-angle lens, her/his photos only get sharp at the center but not at the edges nor the corners.

You may have a plane of focus is close to flat at wide-open aperture on some special lenses like 58mm 1.2 Noct or the long focal lenses, but not for the other normal or wide-angle lenses.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Especially the part you put in all caps.

So, you don't know that the plane of focus is a REAL SPHERE EQUIDISTANT FROM THE SENSOR that makes optical engineer's headaches to make a lens that sharp from corner to corner and from edge to edge?
And, you don't know how expensive for those lenses?

 

[Josh66]

I think what you bhop miss here is the the plane of focus is considered as flat but itn't. It's a sphere equidistant from the sensor. You can only consider it is a flat plane in cases of the long tele focal lenses which have narrow FoV and closing the apertures down.

For the landscape photos, mostly people use normal or wide-angle lens which have wide FoV. In such a case, the plane of focus is a REAL SPHERE EQUIDISTANT FROM THE SENSOR, it isn't a flat plane anymore. Specially, when one wide-opens a normal or a wide-angle lens, her/his photos only get sharp at the center but not at the edges nor the corners.

You may have a plane of focus is close to flat at wide-open aperture on some special lenses like 58mm 1.2 Noct or the long focal lenses, but not for the other normal or wide-angle lenses.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Especially the part you put in all caps.

So, you don't know that the plane of focus is a REAL SPHERE EQUIDISTANT FROM THE SENSOR that makes optical engineer's headaches to make a lens that sharp from corner to corner and from edge to edge?
And, you don't know how expensive for those lenses?

Please enlighten me.

 

[bhop]

I think what you bhop miss here is the the plane of focus is considered as flat but itn't. It's a sphere equidistant from the sensor.

No it isn't..

actually, maybe it's possible depending on the lens, but generally speaking, it's flat.

 

[AperturePriority]

Ah.. I just put the green line there to make it easier to see how the focus spot moves away from the subject, didn't even think about that being the plane too.. heh, heh.. but i guess it'd be something like this. I could make a cleaner version, but I closed that illustrator file already and didn't save it.. gotta get back to work anyway.

View attachment 7112

I think what you bhop miss here is the the plane of focus is considered as flat but itn't. It's a sphere equidistant from the sensor. You can only consider it is a flat plane in cases of the long tele focal lenses which have narrow FoV and closing the apertures down.

For the landscape photos, mostly people use normal or wide-angle lens which have wide FoV. In such a case, the plane of focus is a REAL SPHERE EQUIDISTANT FROM THE SENSOR, it isn't a flat plane anymore. Specially, when one wide-opens a normal or a wide-angle lens, her/his photos only get sharp at the center but not at the edges nor the corners.

You may have a plane of focus is close to flat at wide-open aperture on some special lenses like 58mm 1.2 Noct or the long focal lenses, but not for the other normal or wide-angle lenses.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Especially the part you put in all caps.

What you don't get is your wide-angle lenses only get sharp at the center but not at the corners and the edges when wide-opened because of the plane of focus is a REAL SPHERE EQUIDISTANT FROM THE SENSOR. The plane of focus isn't flat.

 

[usayit]

Its not flat.... but I think we are again... splitting hairs over something not really that big of a deal in real practical sense.

 

[bhop]

What you don't get is your wide-angle lenses only get sharp at the center but not at the corners and the edges when wide-opened because of the plane of focus is a REAL SPHERE EQUIDISTANT FROM THE SENSOR. The plane of focus isn't flat.

I'm no lens engineer, but it seems like that's more of an issue with having to used curved glass to get a wide field of view rather than the plane of focus. You know the definition of 'plane' is a flat, two dimensional surface right?

Its not flat.... but I think we are again... splitting hairs over something not really that big of a deal in real practical sense.

True.. i'm over it.

 

[Josh66]

I think what you bhop miss here is the the plane of focus is considered as flat but itn't. It's a sphere equidistant from the sensor. You can only consider it is a flat plane in cases of the long tele focal lenses which have narrow FoV and closing the apertures down.

For the landscape photos, mostly people use normal or wide-angle lens which have wide FoV. In such a case, the plane of focus is a REAL SPHERE EQUIDISTANT FROM THE SENSOR, it isn't a flat plane anymore. Specially, when one wide-opens a normal or a wide-angle lens, her/his photos only get sharp at the center but not at the edges nor the corners.

You may have a plane of focus is close to flat at wide-open aperture on some special lenses like 58mm 1.2 Noct or the long focal lenses, but not for the other normal or wide-angle lenses.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Especially the part you put in all caps.

What you don't get is your wide-angle lenses only get sharp at the center but not at the corners and the edges when wide-opened because of the plane of focus is a REAL SPHERE EQUIDISTANT FROM THE SENSOR. The plane of focus isn't flat.

I don't have any wide angle lenses.

 

[AperturePriority]

I think what you bhop miss here is the the plane of focus is considered as flat but itn't. It's a sphere equidistant from the sensor.

No it isn't..

actually, maybe it's possible depending on the lens, but generally speaking, it's flat.

As I said, it's considered flat in cases of the long focal lenses which have narrow FoV, not for the normal or wide-angle lenses what have wide FoV. And, you may say that it's flat in case of Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 Noct which cost you about 5 grands used but not an average lens.

 

[AperturePriority]

Its not flat.... but I think we are again... splitting hairs over something not really that big of a deal in real practical sense.

I think the sentence in blue bold is what you did in your "research" at post # 38?

 

[bhop]

This is turning into wedding on an x100 part two.. sort of.. internet arguments suck.

The only real answer worth anything here (IMO) is that it doesn't really matter unless you're shooting at f/1.0 or doing macro work.

 

[usayit]

Its not flat.... but I think we are again... splitting hairs over something not really that big of a deal in real practical sense.

I think the sentence in blue bold is what you did in your "research" at post # 38?

I've been shooting for most of my life... I never considered it a big deal until I started to shoot a "corner case" situation.... again... 50mm f/1 at close approximate ranges. I noticed that I was missing focused and decided to figure out how big of margin I was dealing with. So in my case, it was a real problem. BUT (please read) I've said many times in this thread... that in most cases it DOESN'T REALLY MATTER.... and most here (including most online blogs/articles) are making big deal out of nothing.

I posted the calculations a few months later in response to another thread.... just to show how small it is. Its one thing to say "It doesn't matter much". Its another to say "It doesn't matter much... and here's why". Researching a question is NEVER a waist of time... Allowing a small margin of error impact how you go about your business is a waist of time.

Read... understand the intent... it takes both.

 

[AperturePriority]

Its not flat.... but I think we are again... splitting hairs over something not really that big of a deal in real practical sense.

Because the focal plane isn't flat as you stated, now you can clearly say that recompose doesn't suck at all!

 

[bhop]

Its not flat.... but I think we are again... splitting hairs over something not really that big of a deal in real practical sense.

Because the focal plane isn't flat as you stated, now you can clearly say that recompose doesn't suck at all!

Why do you think the focal plane isn't flat?

 

[AperturePriority]

Its not flat.... but I think we are again... splitting hairs over something not really that big of a deal in real practical sense.

I think the sentence in blue bold is what you did in your "research" at post # 38?

I've been shooting for most of my life... I never considered it a big deal until I started to shoot a "corner case" situation.... again... 50mm f/1 at close approximate ranges. I noticed that I was missing focused and decided to figure out how big of margin I was dealing with. So in my case, it was a real problem. BUT (please read) I've said many times in this thread... that in most cases it DOESN'T REALLY MATTER.... and most here (including most online blogs/articles) are making big deal out of nothing. Read... understand the intent... it takes both.

I've been shooting for most of my life...<<<<Quote from usayit>>>> Because of shooting for most of your life means you are right in your conclusion "recompose suck!"?

 

[MTVision]

I've been shooting for most of my life...<<<<Quote from usayit>>>> Because of shooting for most of your life means you are right in your conclusion "recompose suck!"?

If I read correctly he never said recompose sucks.