Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The comment was made that DoF and Hyperfocal calculations are based on
> a binary decision: It's either sharp (in focus) or it isn't. I highly
> disagree with that assessment. ...
>
> The history behind the DoF calculations (and lens markings) is based
> on the viewing of a standard size print observed from a standard
> viewing distance. It's not a binary thing, but extremely variable ...
I know he is far from a popular man on this list, but Ken Rockwell
has a page on this topic that seems to me (far from expert) to
make sense: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/focus.htm
Anyone care to critique that? Or point to a better resource?
A method I have used with a reasonably fast prime (f2.0 or
better) is to just pick something at a good distance (infinity
focus), open the lens as wide as it will go, shorten focus
until I can see blur, lengthen it a smidgen to eliminate the
blur, stop down to f5.6 and shoot. I'm reasonably happy
with results, but wonder if there is a better way.
Also, that method won't work for a slower lens. Does
anyone have a good suggestion for those?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|