Estimating the Hyperfocal Distance for Those who actually Use it.

My method is to have in my camera bag a single A4 sheet printout of a graph with six traces f2.8, f4, f5.6, f8, f11 and f16 against x axis hyperfocal distance from 2 to 500m and Y axis focal lengths from 20 to 100mm.

For wide angle lenses there is masses of latitude so I extrapolate. When using lenses over 100mm focal length I'm usually trying to limit depth of field not maximise it so my one piece of paper covers all I need.

(I also have the app on a smart phone but have never used it in the field.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manfred M

As a large format printer; A2 / 17" x 22" and pixel peepers getting their noses right up close, I have little margin of error.

---

Durn those pixel-peepers!!

If one needs to account for them, I would recommend a CoC of one pixel-pitch ... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

I have a fixed focal length camera where it's pretty simple to do the Rule in one's head. Focal Length is 24.2mm, say 24mm. So at f/8 the aperture diameter is 24/8 = 3mm. Ergo, for someone with average vision, the Sh for 24mm and f/8 would be 3 x 1.5 = 4.5m = 15ft.

The Rule: Hyperfocal distance = focal length divided by the f-number divided by the DOF fraction.

Remember, this a quick estimate without the need for tables or formulae or apps, so don't expect super accuracy but, for me, it's "good enough for Government Work" ... ;)

---

Sorry Ted, but the 1.5*d rule works only for a 24mm lens on a 1.7 crop sensor :)

It should be "focal length squared", which means that hyperfocal distance for a 20mm lens at f/2.0 is 5 times shorter than that for a 100mm lens at f/10 despite aperture diameter being 10mm in both cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dem

Sorry Ted, but the 1.5*d rule works only for a 24mm lens on a 1.7 crop sensor :)

It should be "focal length squared", which means that hyperfocal distance for a 20mm lens at f/2.0 is 5 times shorter than that for a 100mm lens at f/10 despite aperture diameter being 10mm in both cases.

---

Yep, you're dead right. What was I thinking, duh.

Even easier method - pull out smart phone and shoot photo = everything is sharp ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bralk

Even easier method - pull out smart phone and shoot photo = everything is sharp ;)

---

That won't work for me as I am a large format print maker. An image out of a smart phone does not make the cut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bralk

Even easier method - pull out smart phone and shoot photo = everything is sharp ;)

---

LOL. ;)

Works well for me as I don't print.

http://kronometric.org/phot/manor/ca...ear%20orig.jpg