This is the misconception a lot of people possess. They often confuse deep DOF and in-focus as being sharp. In focus and sharpness are 2 different animals.
What aperture to select for landscape?
- Thread starter cancan7
- Start date
- Status
This is the misconception a lot of people possess. They often confuse deep DOF and in-focus as being sharp. In focus and sharpness are 2 different animals.
...that's like saying that an oof picture can be sharp
and an infocus picture can be not sharp
nonetheless, if you're saying NOT AS SHARP then if you had focused on them instead.. it is entirely possible, of course. i hope i have deciphered correctly what you are trying to say
wah , cheam leh.
wat i feel,
OOF, cannot be sharp cus its OOF (regardless of the quality of lens).
in-focus, can be not sharp, cus the lens is inherently not sharp.
rite?
haiyo, look at it this way, if you are taking a landscape photo, and are focusing on the wrong thing, say the sky and not the foreground.. if you are using f/11 with sufficient dof chances are that it will look in focus too, and i doubt anyone would be able to tell where you are focusing on. of course if the foreground is really really in your face then that's another story.
this is different from say, taking a photo of a person against a background and using f/1.4.. in this case if you focus on background the poor person will be 100% plus chop oof
whereas if you focus on person, background will be 100% plus chop in focus
now, concentrate on this example, and think of f/11, perhaps. now focus on the person versus focus on the background. do you think the differences will be visible? but yet, the person in the second example would probably be MARGINALLY sharper than the person in the foreground, i.e. yet in both cases the person would appear to be in focus
of course this would depend on the FOCAL LENGTH used, as well as the type of lens use, like macro has very razor thin dof compared to normal lenses when in macro mode.
To see the effects of it, you should try to shoot pictures indoors at f/8~f/11 without getting blurred pictures. Thus the need for lenses with wider apertures. Good lenses, like the Canon L series, Leica, Zeiss and Nikon Trinity lenses produce excellent pictures wide open, but it's just a fact that the pictures are going to be at it's best when it's at f/8 - f/11 as at that aperture setting, the best spot of the lens, the center is used.
Samuel
this is not a stupid question.
fast (and expensive) lens are needed to allow high shutter speed (eg sports, esp indoors) or extremely shallow depth of field (eg potrait).
however, regardless of fast or slow lens, performance normally improves from some stopping down. and 8 and 11 (the middle apertures) usually happens to be the sharpest.
to me, it is pointless to buy a big and expensive piece of glass (eg f 1.2) and almost never shoot wide open. jus like driving a sports car in a country where there is no proper road or the speed limit is only 50 km/h.
a very personal opinion of mine is that extremely fast lens are pushing the boundaries of lens design (which makes them expensive). they are critical when a photo must be "squeezed" out from almost impossible scenarios (eg photo journalism). dun expect the quality to be spectacular wide open at extreme apertures.
fast (and expensive) lens are needed to allow high shutter speed (eg sports, esp indoors) or extremely shallow depth of field (eg potrait).
however, regardless of fast or slow lens, performance normally improves from some stopping down. and 8 and 11 (the middle apertures) usually happens to be the sharpest.
to me, it is pointless to buy a big and expensive piece of glass (eg f 1.2) and almost never shoot wide open. jus like driving a sports car in a country where there is no proper road or the speed limit is only 50 km/h.
a very personal opinion of mine is that extremely fast lens are pushing the boundaries of lens design (which makes them expensive). they are critical when a photo must be "squeezed" out from almost impossible scenarios (eg photo journalism). dun expect the quality to be spectacular wide open at extreme apertures.
yeah.. u got it right.. in focus but not as sharp..
it could be the DOF is not wide enough..
Thanks bro for the clear explanation. Now I feel better that I did ask that question.
Cheers!
Thanks, Samuel. Will try that with my 50mm f1.4 and shoot with wide open versus at f11 indoor with proper lighting.
I don't quite understand this part, wouldn't focusing on the person also render the background oof as well, at an aperture of f/1.4?
aiya make mistake la, it's obvious what i meant is render bg oof
next time just correct in your own mind, i don't really care.. don't usually read my posts after typing
Could you show us an example? I shot at f/2.8 at ISO 1600 (becoz it was very dark and I didn't have a tripod/IS with me) and placed my focus on the tip of the tall structure, which I believe is the furthest from the camera and could place everything in focus. However, the foreground turned out oof after viewing it fullscreen on comp. Is there anyway I can shoot at f/2.8 and acheive reasonable sharpness throughout the photo for the same photo framing? Hopefully someone can enlighten me
ThanksPS: I dun think it's handshake hmm...
Could you show us an example? I shot at f/2.8 at ISO 1600 (becoz it was very dark and I didn't have a tripod/IS with me) and placed my focus on the tip of the tall structure, which I believe is the furthest from the camera and could place everything in focus. However, the foreground turned out oof after viewing it fullscreen on comp. Is there anyway I can shoot at f/2.8 and acheive reasonable sharpness throughout the photo for the same photo framing? Hopefully someone can enlighten me
PS: I dun think it's handshake hmm...
This is Taiwan - Lover's bridge right ?
I do not think u can keep every subject there at reasonable sharpness at 2.8.
There is only so much DOF when u shoot at 2.8, and will not be able to cover the picture u took from forground to the bridge
Ryan
This is Taiwan - Lover's bridge right ?
I do not think u can keep every subject there at reasonable sharpness at 2.8.
There is only so much DOF when u shoot at 2.8, and will not be able to cover the picture u took from forground to the bridge
Ryan
Yup i agree. Personally I think it's a nice picture ruined by large aperture.
In this case, must I shoot at at least f/8 onwards and with a tripod (unless I've got IS-VR-SS hands) and there's no other way out? Thanks
This is Taiwan - Lover's bridge right ?
I do not think u can keep every subject there at reasonable sharpness at 2.8.
There is only so much DOF when u shoot at 2.8, and will not be able to cover the picture u took from forground to the bridge
Ryan
DOF not enough @ f/2.8, the picture look soft~~ @ least f/8 is need to get it right. =)
so can say the starburst effect is relative to the diffraction?
I understand that only the exact point of focus is truly sharp. The depth of field is simply a region of acceptable sharpness. The scenery outside the depth of field is therefore unacceptable in terms of sharpness.
The depth of field does not just depend on the aperture. It is also affected by the focal length and sensor size. As a guide, the smaller the aperture, the shorter the focal length and the larger the sensor size, will make for greater depth of field.
You can find out more about the hyperfocal distance for your set-up at http://www.dofmaster.com. The hyperfocal distance varies by kit.
The depth of field does not just depend on the aperture. It is also affected by the focal length and sensor size. As a guide, the smaller the aperture, the shorter the focal length and the larger the sensor size, will make for greater depth of field.
You can find out more about the hyperfocal distance for your set-up at http://www.dofmaster.com. The hyperfocal distance varies by kit.
- Status
Similar threads
