Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/06/15

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Tri-Elmar and Depth of Field marks
From: Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 11:37:42 -0700

Malcolm McCullough wrote:
> 
>><snip>it is better to focus at infinity rather than
> >hyperfocal. The argument in favor of this involves perspective
> >geometry,><snip>
> >Richard S.
> >
> 
> I can think of two reasons for focussing at infinity for distant scenes:
> 1) The distant-scene image will be in sharp focus, instead of being just
> 'acceptably' out of focus - which it would be if the lens is set at the
> hyperfocal distance.
> 2) (On topic for Leica M) The viewfinder markings will be in the right
> place to correct for distant-scene parallax (possibly not all that
> significant a difference)
> 3) You get more scenery on each frame of the film.
><snip>

I did just this for the first time in my 30 year photo life on my trip
last month. I had several days with the focus out so I had to zone focus
more than usual. I don't zone focus so much with long lenses but here I
was doing it with both the 90 and 135. -Shooting countly big sky landscapes.
In a few instances I screwed up and didn't quite get infinity in focus.
It made for what looks in the contact sheet to be an interesting and
acceptable effect. I think it is a general rule that out of focus
backgrounds are easier to deal with visually than out of focus foregrounds.
Mark Rabiner