[Leica] Hyperfocal distance

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

I will sometimes when using a wider lenes set it up so I'll have infinity to
7 feet or whatever. When ever you set it up so infinity is the "outer limit"
of your focus in your focus scale you've set it up to your Hyperfocal
distance for that f stop. You don't need mathematical formals which give you
numbers where are impossible to focus on as how do you focus on 77 feet?
But I think infinity is blown all out of proportion.
Who needs it!?
Many shots look find with a slightly soft infinity. IE
Slightly soft trees and telephone poles and wires way off in the distances;
clouds are soft anyway. That's why they call them clouds.

Scale focusing is the main thing.
Plot at a pre focused area that you feel comfortable with; set it up in your
mind as you look in front of you or pre visualize it and walk down the
street getting everything in that zone.
5 it 15 feet perhaps.
Freeing yourself from focusing is a great thing.
And you're more free than with auto focus.


Mark William Rabiner



> From: Lawrence Zeitlin <lrzeitlin at optonline.net>
> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:27:56 -0400
> To: <lug at leica-users.org>
> Cc: Lawrence Zeitlin <lrzeitlin at optonline.net>
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Hyperfocal distance
> 
> Here is a question for LUG technical experts.
> 
> I was checking through my 1948 edition of the Graphic/Graflex manual
> and I found a rule of thumb for computing hyperfocal distance. The
> rule states that the hyperfocal distance of any lens is equal to the
> effective diameter of the lens opening x 1000. (H=d x 1000)
> 
> Example: A 50 mm fl lens at f4 has an effective aperture diameter of
> 12.5 mm. The hyperfocal distance is thus 12500 mm (12.5 meters or 41
> feet). At f8 the lens has an effective aperture diameter of 6.25 mm
> so the hyperfocal distance is 6250 mm (6.25 meters or 20.5 feet. I
> checked the formula calculation against Kodaks chart of hyperfocal
> distance for various focal length lenses and apertures and the
> figures seem to correspond closely.
> 
> The lenses referred to the the Graphic/Graflex manual and the Kodak
> tables were all normal prime lenses. None were retrofocus designs.
> Further the Kodak tables, and I assume the Graphic/Graflex formula
> used a circle of confusion equivalent to 2 minutes of arc, roughly
> 1/1720 of the focal length. That works out to about .03 mm for a 50
> mm lens, about a resolution of 34 lines per mm. I recall that this
> was the resolution that the late great Modern Photography deemed
> acceptable (but not great). Doubling the calculated resolution to 64
> lines per mm by increasing the multiplier in the equation to 2000
> should bring the formula more in line with the demands of LUG listees.
> 
> Now my specific questions. Is the formula still valid for modern
> retrofocus lenses as used in most DSLRs and the M8? Does anyone still
> use hyperfocal distances nowadays? I confess that I make a stab at it
> in shooting my Rollei 35. An estimate of hyperfocal distance is also
> useful in street photography when you can't take time to focus. But
> do the estimates work for modern optic designs?
> 
> If you can get your hands on it, the old Graphic/Graflex manual is
> quite a read. The chapter on lenses was written by Rudolph Kingslake,
> the chapter on printing by Ansel Adams, that on composition by
> Berenice Abbott, and so on. War photos were of WW2. News photos by
> WeeGee. The section on PR photography was illustrated with photos of
> young actors and actresses who have become household names. Cameras
> weighed five pounds and up. Heiland flash guns mounted four
> flashbulbs in case a lot of light was needed for slow color films at
> ASA 12.
> 
> Thank God for relatively tiny Leicas.
> 
> Larry Z
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information