Re: Lens with Depth of Field indicator. (For full frame [36x24mm] digital camera.)

On 09-12-13 14:52 , David Ruether wrote:
"Alan Browne"<alan.browne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:JbednWTIvbTCv7jWnZ2dnUVZ_oEAAAAA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 09-12-13 10:40 , C J Campbell wrote:
On 2009-12-13 01:36:03 -0800, Henry<theeight@xxxxxxxxx> said:

Before I launch myself into the wonderful world
of search engines, which I understand little of, I
thought I would be better advised first of all, to
start by asking those who may know more about
digital cameras and lenses it than I do. Some of
you may have used such lenses, assuming
they exist!
Henry.

DOF indicators are going out of style, much to the frustration of many
photographers. Nearly all the lenses that have them are older models
that are likely to be discontinued.

Grab 'em while you can. Otherwise you are left with the DOF preview button.

I find DOF preview to be more notional than "correct". When working with the old Hasselblad lenses, it's great. My newer
Minolta/Sony lenses do not have very useful DOF scales.

I've been an "unbeliever" when it comes to DOF scales...
Notice that when they exist on lenses (or in charts), they
symmetrically place on either side of the "correct" focus
point at a given aperture both the nearer and farther focus
points within which a selected range of "misfocus" supposedly
is permissible before the image becomes visibly soft - or the
distance range around the correct focus within which all is
supposed to be "hunkey-dorey". Baloney!;-) OK, here's why.
Imagine (or shoot) a landscape with a tree with leaves at a
great distance. Include the same type of tree much closer to
the camera. Now, using DOF scales and aperture, select the
distance setting on the lens that the DOF scale says will just
produce both good sharpness for both trees and also equal
sharpness for both trees. Print the image. You may notice that
the more distant tree that was photographed doesn't look as
sharp as the nearer one. In fact, it may look down-right fuzzy
in comparison! This is easy to explain. The "blob" size used as
a standard for "sharp point rendition" is the same in both cases,
but for the distant tree, the "blob" size represents a much
larger proportion of its size, making it appear softer. Beware
of this effect when including near-infinity landscape features.
"Almost-sharp" horizons and distant features generally don't
look very good, and you may need to "fudge" the focus a bit
toward infinity-focus and also use a smaller stop to really have
good DOF coverage. BTW, I always considered that DOF
indications cheated by about a stop..;-)

I always gave myself "gutter" on each side including for infinity focus using the scales. Never had an issue with that (which is also the case where I used the scale the most.) Resulted in an out of focus infinity in the VF but sharp on the slides back towards the camera, most of the way...
.

Relevant Pages