Focus Beyond Infinity
p.2 #1Focus Beyond Infinity
post deleted and reposted below with additions/edits.
Edited on Jan 05, 2026 at 12:11 PM · View previous versions
Edited on Jan 05, 2026 at 12:11 PM · View previous versions
Jan 05, 2026 at 10:28 AM
p.2 #2Focus Beyond Infinity
This looks like the typical result oneoften gets from taking a camera out of a warm car into cold air and taking a photo - regardless of brand.
Jan 05, 2026 at 10:46 AM
p.2 #3Focus Beyond Infinity
Steve Spencer wrote:
If you read what he said, he actually said he wasn't sure what he did for focus and might not have focussed at all. It was cold and he was working fast and had gloves on. He did not obtain anything close to optimal focus and acknowledged that. It was user error and says nothing about the system. He knows he could have and should have obtained better focus.
I certainly have shots like that too. It happens. Obviously the solution is to be more careful about obtaining focus, but such a shot doesn't tell us anything about the system and how easy it would have been to get good focus if more care was exercised. I have had an occasional mistake like this with every system I have shot and with none of them (including Fuji) was it difficult to get the focus right on such a shot if I used the system properly. On this shot, it is not a system issue it was simply a user mistake, or so it appears.Unless he was using BBF (which we don't know) half pressing the shutter button and aiming at the building (seems steady, no shake) triggers the AF. If AF was triggered on the house and results in overall softness like in this case, then it is a clear sign of focus beyond infinity.That unless is important. He might well have been using BBF. The if is also an important if. What is clear from the post is he was not claiming that he tried to focus on the building. You are right that "if" he tried to focus on the building and he got the outcome he got, then it would indicate the system didn't work as he intended. But that was not his claim. He couldn't recall what he tried to focus on or even if he tried to focus at all. We simply don't know, and the shooter can't remember, what he was trying to focus on in this shot, so we can't draw any inferences about whether the system worked or did not work in this instance. User error seems not only a plausible cause for the poor focus but a likely cause.If he aims at the building and presses the shutter button - it is focusing on the building - unless in MF or BBFBut we don't even know he aimed at the building and we don't know if he was in MF or BBF, and he can't remember to tell us, so we can't infer anything. There are a lot of hypotheticals here and you and even the shooter can't answer them.
Since he framed the building and there is no motion blur, chances are he hit the exposure button and AF tried to focus on the building. Also, if he had accidentally engaged AF while the camera was pointing down, he would have no focus or very close focus - both look very different from what we see. But yes, we don't know if he was in MF or BBF mode. I am no longer a member on dpreview. If you are, why don't you ask him?
Nielk Mike wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
Nielk Mike wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
Nielk Mike wrote
He said he missed to "refocus" and not that he did not focus before. The overall softness is a typical sign of focus beyond infinity. If he had focused to a closer distance than the resulting OOF area would look very different.I certainly have shots like that too. It happens. Obviously the solution is to be more careful about obtaining focus, but such a shot doesn't tell us anything about the system and how easy it would have been to get good focus if more care was exercised. I have had an occasional mistake like this with every system I have shot and with none of them (including Fuji) was it difficult to get the focus right on such a shot if I used the system properly. On this shot, it is not a system issue it was simply a user mistake, or so it appears.
Since he framed the building and there is no motion blur, chances are he hit the exposure button and AF tried to focus on the building. Also, if he had accidentally engaged AF while the camera was pointing down, he would have no focus or very close focus - both look very different from what we see. But yes, we don't know if he was in MF or BBF mode. I am no longer a member on dpreview. If you are, why don't you ask him?
Jan 05, 2026 at 10:47 AM
p.2 #4Focus Beyond Infinity
Nielk Mike wrote:
I certainly have shots like that too. It happens. Obviously the solution is to be more careful about obtaining focus, but such a shot doesn't tell us anything about the system and how easy it would have been to get good focus if more care was exercised. I have had an occasional mistake like this with every system I have shot and with none of them (including Fuji) was it difficult to get the focus right on such a shot if I used the system properly. On this shot, it is not a system issue it was simply a user mistake, or so it appears.Unless he was using BBF (which we don't know) half pressing the shutter button and aiming at the building (seems steady, no shake) triggers the AF. If AF was triggered on the house and results in overall softness like in this case, then it is a clear sign of focus beyond infinity.That unless is important. He might well have been using BBF. The if is also an important if. What is clear from the post is he was not claiming that he tried to focus on the building. You are right that "if" he tried to focus on the building and he got the outcome he got, then it would indicate the system didn't work as he intended. But that was not his claim. He couldn't recall what he tried to focus on or even if he tried to focus at all. We simply don't know, and the shooter can't remember, what he was trying to focus on in this shot, so we can't draw any inferences about whether the system worked or did not work in this instance. User error seems not only a plausible cause for the poor focus but a likely cause.If he aims at the building and presses the shutter button - it is focusing on the building - unless in MF or BBFBut we don't even know he aimed at the building and we don't know if he was in MF or BBF, and he can't remember to tell us, so we can't infer anything. There are a lot of hypotheticals here and you and even the shooter can't answer them.Since he framed the building and there is no motion blur, chances are he hit the exposure button and AF tried to focus on the building. Also, if he had accidentally engaged AF while the camera was pointing down, he would have no focus or very close focus - both look very different from what we see. But yes, we don't know if he was in MF or BBF mode. I am no longer a member on dpreview. If you are, why don't you ask him?
I am not a member of dpreview and I have never been. Further he made it clear in his post that he didn't know or remember what he did with focus for this shot. Like I said, you are making assumptions when we can't know what he did and even he can't remember what he did. We simply cannot know what happened with focus for this shot, so I don't think we can infer that the system caused the problems with focus rather than the user. I think it is at least as likely that the problem was user error and even the user acknowledged that possibility.
Steve Spencer wrote
Nielk Mike wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
Nielk Mike wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
If you read what he said, he actually said he wasn't sure what he did for focus and might not have focussed at all. It was cold and he was working fast and had gloves on. He did not obtain anything close to optimal focus and acknowledged that. It was user error and says nothing about the system. He knows he could have and should have obtained better focus.I certainly have shots like that too. It happens. Obviously the solution is to be more careful about obtaining focus, but such a shot doesn't tell us anything about the system and how easy it would have been to get good focus if more care was exercised. I have had an occasional mistake like this with every system I have shot and with none of them (including Fuji) was it difficult to get the focus right on such a shot if I used the system properly. On this shot, it is not a system issue it was simply a user mistake, or so it appears.
I am not a member of dpreview and I have never been. Further he made it clear in his post that he didn't know or remember what he did with focus for this shot. Like I said, you are making assumptions when we can't know what he did and even he can't remember what he did. We simply cannot know what happened with focus for this shot, so I don't think we can infer that the system caused the problems with focus rather than the user. I think it is at least as likely that the problem was user error and even the user acknowledged that possibility.
Jan 05, 2026 at 11:51 AM
p.2 #5Focus Beyond Infinity
I posted this earlier, but I updated a few things, so reposting:
I’m going to go out on a limb here (and potentially open myself up to having been wrong in the past) but I have seen some issues with Fujifilm zoom lenses (not necessarily just wide angle) where AF’ed images can exhibit unexpected softness like what MIke describes — though I can’t say whether his “to infinity and beyond” analysis is exactly what is happening.
Here’s what I’ve been trying to sort out:
when using my Fujifilm primes (14mm, 23mm, 27mm, 35mm, 50mm, 60mm, 80mm, 90mm) I get consistently accurate AF performance at all distances. However… using my Fujifilm zoom lenses (16-55mm v1, 50-140mm, 100-400mm I get more images OOF at distance than I should and more than I get with my Canon zooms of my FF system.
It has even happened while I was controlling variables and testing for this with the camera in the tripod and using a remote release and EFCS. And, to be sure, in these cases it was not case of operator error or of focusing closer than the primary target — I checked for this.
I think, but I’m not certain yet that the issue crops up mostly when there are subjects at distance, and not with closer subjects. This has perplexed me. In fact, when I’ve tested the lenses I’ve gotten very sharp images using AF at less-than-big distances while getting softer images at greater distances. (I first noticed this when photographing birds with the 100-400 and assumed that it might be related to less optimal tracking of moving objects, but I’ve seen it with stationary subjects at distance, too... including photos of completely stationary birds.)
I’m going to do some more testing to see if I can nail down what is happening.
My experience does not correlate precisely with what Mike reports. For example, he and I had a go-around a year or more (two years?) when he reported this “beyond infinity”issue with wide angle Fujifilm primes. I had never seen it with such lenses and I went to some lengths to try to replicate it but never saw it in that situation. I decided with great confidence that the issue does not exist for me with a range of Fujifilm’s primes.
To be continued…
I’m going to go out on a limb here (and potentially open myself up to having been wrong in the past) but I have seen some issues with Fujifilm zoom lenses (not necessarily just wide angle) where AF’ed images can exhibit unexpected softness like what MIke describes — though I can’t say whether his “to infinity and beyond” analysis is exactly what is happening.
Here’s what I’ve been trying to sort out:
when using my Fujifilm primes (14mm, 23mm, 27mm, 35mm, 50mm, 60mm, 80mm, 90mm) I get consistently accurate AF performance at all distances. However… using my Fujifilm zoom lenses (16-55mm v1, 50-140mm, 100-400mm I get more images OOF at distance than I should and more than I get with my Canon zooms of my FF system.
It has even happened while I was controlling variables and testing for this with the camera in the tripod and using a remote release and EFCS. And, to be sure, in these cases it was not case of operator error or of focusing closer than the primary target — I checked for this.
I think, but I’m not certain yet that the issue crops up mostly when there are subjects at distance, and not with closer subjects. This has perplexed me. In fact, when I’ve tested the lenses I’ve gotten very sharp images using AF at less-than-big distances while getting softer images at greater distances. (I first noticed this when photographing birds with the 100-400 and assumed that it might be related to less optimal tracking of moving objects, but I’ve seen it with stationary subjects at distance, too... including photos of completely stationary birds.)
I’m going to do some more testing to see if I can nail down what is happening.
My experience does not correlate precisely with what Mike reports. For example, he and I had a go-around a year or more (two years?) when he reported this “beyond infinity”issue with wide angle Fujifilm primes. I had never seen it with such lenses and I went to some lengths to try to replicate it but never saw it in that situation. I decided with great confidence that the issue does not exist for me with a range of Fujifilm’s primes.
To be continued…
Jan 05, 2026 at 12:09 PM
p.2 #6Focus Beyond Infinity
Nielk Mike wrote:
Wrong. With zooms, it is not allow for expansion and retraction in changing temperatures. It is the lens not being parfocal. So much for "true craftsmanship".Uh no, your assumption is wrong. All parafocal means is the lens doesn’t change focus as you zoom. The parafocal zoom lens still needs room past infinity to allow for expansion of the barrel diminishing infinity focus. It’s a lens design 101 consideration, any lens with a focusing system needs consideration for thermal expansion.
Not only that, but most contemporary zooms labelled as "parafocal" are not truly parafocal, and still require a minor focus tweak for perfect focus at a new focal length setting. This is especially true going from initial focus at the wide end then zooming to telephoto.You don't get this - and that is fine. It is not about the ability of a lens to focus beyond infinity - it is about the AF focusing beyond infinity which shouldn't happen. And parfocal or not has an impact on how the Distance Limiter Function works (or doesn't). No need to discuss any further. Happy New year.No, you don’t understand. The point is that an uninformed user CAN focus beyond infinity WITHOUT IT BEING A FAULT OF THE CAMERA. They can improperly use manual focus, or they can improperly use AF. With AF, if they focus at 16mm on their intended subject then zoom to 50mm without re-focusing, they could easily end up focused beyond infinity.
Regardless, proper use for infinity focus for general imaging WITH ANY CAMERA SYSTEM is using the hyper focal distance appropriate for aperture and focal chosen. The exceptions to this best practice are few, the aforementioned Astro imaging is one of them.
Again Mike, the point YOU are missing is that the camera, any camera, is just a tool and therefore incumbent upon the user to understand how to use it.You don't get it. It is not about uninformed missing focus - it is about Fuji AF focusing beyond infinity. Of course, you are way too professional to ever encounter this with a Fuji. So good light and have fun.
No, YOU are insisting it's a Fuji specific problem, and it is not, at least not for me with virtually every lens I own, Fuji or 3rd party. But then I know how to use its AF to make it work properly for me...
Jack Flesher wrote
Nielk Mike wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
Nielk Mike wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
AF wide Zooms by design will focus further beyond infinity at the wider focals for precisely the expansion reason I listed above. It isn’t a fault of the design, any mis-focus is a fault of the user for not understanding their equipment. Cameras and lenses are just tools, and a true craftsman understands how their specific tools are designed to work, and uses them accordingly…Not only that, but most contemporary zooms labelled as "parafocal" are not truly parafocal, and still require a minor focus tweak for perfect focus at a new focal length setting. This is especially true going from initial focus at the wide end then zooming to telephoto.
Regardless, proper use for infinity focus for general imaging WITH ANY CAMERA SYSTEM is using the hyper focal distance appropriate for aperture and focal chosen. The exceptions to this best practice are few, the aforementioned Astro imaging is one of them.
Again Mike, the point YOU are missing is that the camera, any camera, is just a tool and therefore incumbent upon the user to understand how to use it.
No, YOU are insisting it's a Fuji specific problem, and it is not, at least not for me with virtually every lens I own, Fuji or 3rd party. But then I know how to use its AF to make it work properly for me...
Jan 05, 2026 at 12:28 PM
AmbientMike
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #7Focus Beyond Infinity
Even if it did accidentally go past infinity occasionally, it doesn't really matter too much. I don't believe a 100% accurate af system exists, pretty hard to get anything 100% accurate actually.
I'm currently using an old DSLR, so I'm kinda like, the af missed, what else is new. I think the main reason people don't like 18-55's may just be because they missed focus, some lenses are not very accurate
I'm currently using an old DSLR, so I'm kinda like, the af missed, what else is new. I think the main reason people don't like 18-55's may just be because they missed focus, some lenses are not very accurate
Jan 05, 2026 at 04:39 PM
AmbientMike
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #8Focus Beyond Infinity
Cliff L. wrote:
This looks like the typical result oneoften gets from taking a camera out of a warm car into cold air and taking a photo - regardless of brand.
Did a lot of bird photography at one point. Shooting out of a warm car using a telephoto when its cold out: forget it.
Jan 05, 2026 at 04:42 PM
p.2 #9Focus Beyond Infinity
I'm fully aware Fuji cameras can miss focus, and can focus past infinity if trying to shoot a low contrast subject at infinity but I fail to see what the problem is. For any critical work I would choose manual focus, for tracking moving subjects focus past infinity is not going to be an issue and for landscape work with a wide lens, ie will have some foreground, I would never want near infinity or at infinity focus in the first place.
Jan 05, 2026 at 09:55 PM
p.2 #10Focus Beyond Infinity
We have no idea what af settings he used for the original photo. The photographer can't remember, so why get exercise jumping to conclusions?
I would have used MF, or if feeling lazy then single point af-s or BBF.
And checked for good focus before and after exposure. Using that working practice I have had no more mis fires with Fuji using 18-55 or 14, 23, 35 etc primes than with other systems, apart from early Nikon which would fail much more often. Any fly by wire AF lenses can 'focus beyond infinity' so can come to rest there if AF is not used, or fails to lock on to sharp focus.
AF is an aid to the photographer, it has limitations and failure rates, just like any other automation. I don't believe Fuji is any worse than others at this basic level, it is not my experience compared to Sony and Nikon slr I have owned.
Gerry
I would have used MF, or if feeling lazy then single point af-s or BBF.
And checked for good focus before and after exposure. Using that working practice I have had no more mis fires with Fuji using 18-55 or 14, 23, 35 etc primes than with other systems, apart from early Nikon which would fail much more often. Any fly by wire AF lenses can 'focus beyond infinity' so can come to rest there if AF is not used, or fails to lock on to sharp focus.
AF is an aid to the photographer, it has limitations and failure rates, just like any other automation. I don't believe Fuji is any worse than others at this basic level, it is not my experience compared to Sony and Nikon slr I have owned.
Gerry
Jan 06, 2026 at 04:47 AM
|
p.2 #11Focus Beyond Infinity
I have been looking at the posts in this thread, and cannot help thinking that focus beyond infinity is a practical impossibility, in the simple sense that this implies that the decision on where to focus was delegated to the camera, and the person behind the camera just pushed the shutter without thinking. However, in real life, this couldn't happen to those who are familiar with basic ideas such as the hyperfocal distance, for instance?
I am willing to be corrected, of course. If, actually, there are situations in landscape photography when it is better to focus at or near infinity, I would like to know when this can be appropriate or beneficial. When using AF, my usual way of focusing is with a small spot. When no prominent subject is present in a scene, and no obvious place to focus, I tend to have the focusing spot a bit under the center of the scene. Thus, going back to what I have already said, I fail to understand how focusing beyond infinity could happen, in practice. Am I missing something?
I am willing to be corrected, of course. If, actually, there are situations in landscape photography when it is better to focus at or near infinity, I would like to know when this can be appropriate or beneficial. When using AF, my usual way of focusing is with a small spot. When no prominent subject is present in a scene, and no obvious place to focus, I tend to have the focusing spot a bit under the center of the scene. Thus, going back to what I have already said, I fail to understand how focusing beyond infinity could happen, in practice. Am I missing something?
Jan 06, 2026 at 08:40 AM
p.2 #12Focus Beyond Infinity
ruthenium wrote:
I have been looking at the posts in this thread, and cannot help thinking that focus beyond infinity is a practical impossibility, in the simple sense that this implies that the decision on where to focus was delegated to the camera, and the person behind the camera just pushed the shutter without thinking. However, in real life, this couldn't happen to those who are familiar with basic ideas such as the hyperfocal distance, for instance?
I am willing to be corrected, of course. If, actually, there are situations in landscape photography when it is better to focus at or near...Show more →
The only thing you’re missing is we have a participant here that has been attempting to convince us that focus beyond infinity is an inherent Fuji defect that does not exist in any other camera. He is of course wrong, but that won’t stop him from beating the dead horse. He usually proffers a couple similar threads here each year. Oh, the reason he doesn’t have access to DPR is he was eventually banned for continually posting similar there — but clearly he still follows them
PS: To be clear, I actually like the person in question and enjoy most of his posts here even though we rarely agree. I just wish he’d give up this particular “Fuji infinity focus” battle 👍
I have been looking at the posts in this thread, and cannot help thinking that focus beyond infinity is a practical impossibility, in the simple sense that this implies that the decision on where to focus was delegated to the camera, and the person behind the camera just pushed the shutter without thinking. However, in real life, this couldn't happen to those who are familiar with basic ideas such as the hyperfocal distance, for instance?
I am willing to be corrected, of course. If, actually, there are situations in landscape photography when it is better to focus at or near...Show more →
The only thing you’re missing is we have a participant here that has been attempting to convince us that focus beyond infinity is an inherent Fuji defect that does not exist in any other camera. He is of course wrong, but that won’t stop him from beating the dead horse. He usually proffers a couple similar threads here each year. Oh, the reason he doesn’t have access to DPR is he was eventually banned for continually posting similar there — but clearly he still follows them
PS: To be clear, I actually like the person in question and enjoy most of his posts here even though we rarely agree. I just wish he’d give up this particular “Fuji infinity focus” battle 👍
Jan 06, 2026 at 09:54 AM
p.2 #13Focus Beyond Infinity
ruthenium wrote:
I have been looking at the posts in this thread, and cannot help thinking that focus beyond infinity is a practical impossibility, in the simple sense that this implies that the decision on where to focus was delegated to the camera, and the person behind the camera just pushed the shutter without thinking. However, in real life, this couldn't happen to those who are familiar with basic ideas such as the hyperfocal distance, for instance?
I am willing to be corrected, of course. If, actually, there are situations in landscape photography when it is better to focus at or near...Show more →
While 'hyperfocal' might usually be the choice for a distant landscape, there are occasions where one might want the absolute sharpest plane of focus to be at 'infinity' and only use made of the DoF in the foreground. I often do this with large mountain masses, Alps etc, where the main 'interest' is the very distant peaks.
I all these cases AF is entirely redundant ironically. Give me a good MF lens with accurate hard stop infinity any day for that sort of thing.
Gerry
I have been looking at the posts in this thread, and cannot help thinking that focus beyond infinity is a practical impossibility, in the simple sense that this implies that the decision on where to focus was delegated to the camera, and the person behind the camera just pushed the shutter without thinking. However, in real life, this couldn't happen to those who are familiar with basic ideas such as the hyperfocal distance, for instance?
I am willing to be corrected, of course. If, actually, there are situations in landscape photography when it is better to focus at or near...Show more →
While 'hyperfocal' might usually be the choice for a distant landscape, there are occasions where one might want the absolute sharpest plane of focus to be at 'infinity' and only use made of the DoF in the foreground. I often do this with large mountain masses, Alps etc, where the main 'interest' is the very distant peaks.
I all these cases AF is entirely redundant ironically. Give me a good MF lens with accurate hard stop infinity any day for that sort of thing.
Gerry
Jan 06, 2026 at 10:20 AM
p.2 #14Focus Beyond Infinity
gyoung143 wrote:
I am willing to be corrected, of course. If, actually, there are situations in landscape photography when it is better to focus at or near infinity, I would like to know when this can be appropriate or beneficial. When using AF, my usual way of focusing is with a small spot. When no prominent subject is present in a scene, and no obvious place to focus, I tend to have the focusing spot a bit under the center of the scene. Thus, going back to what I have already said, I fail to understand how focusing beyond infinity could happen, in practice. Am I missing something?While 'hyperfocal' might usually be the choice for a distant landscape, there are occasions where one might want the absolute sharpest plane of focus to be at 'infinity' and only use made of the DoF in the foreground. I often do this with large mountain masses, Alps etc, where the main 'interest' is the very distant peaks.
I all these cases AF is entirely redundant ironically. Give me a good MF lens with accurate hard stop infinity any day for that sort of thing.
Gerry
There is no such thing as an “accurate hard stop infinity” even with a manual focus lens. They ALL have to allow extra focus room BEYOND infinity to compensate for thermal expansion in the lens system.
ruthenium wrote
I have been looking at the posts in this thread, and cannot help thinking that focus beyond infinity is a practical impossibility, in the simple sense that this implies that the decision on where to focus was delegated to the camera, and the person behind the camera just pushed the shutter without thinking. However, in real life, this couldn't happen to those who are familiar with basic ideas such as the hyperfocal distance, for instance?I am willing to be corrected, of course. If, actually, there are situations in landscape photography when it is better to focus at or near infinity, I would like to know when this can be appropriate or beneficial. When using AF, my usual way of focusing is with a small spot. When no prominent subject is present in a scene, and no obvious place to focus, I tend to have the focusing spot a bit under the center of the scene. Thus, going back to what I have already said, I fail to understand how focusing beyond infinity could happen, in practice. Am I missing something?
I all these cases AF is entirely redundant ironically. Give me a good MF lens with accurate hard stop infinity any day for that sort of thing.
Gerry
There is no such thing as an “accurate hard stop infinity” even with a manual focus lens. They ALL have to allow extra focus room BEYOND infinity to compensate for thermal expansion in the lens system.
Jan 06, 2026 at 10:43 AM
p.2 #15Focus Beyond Infinity
gyoung143 wrote:
I am willing to be corrected, of course. If, actually, there are situations in landscape photography when it is better to focus at or near infinity, I would like to know when this can be appropriate or beneficial. When using AF, my usual way of focusing is with a small spot. When no prominent subject is present in a scene, and no obvious place to focus, I tend to have the focusing spot a bit under the center of the scene. Thus, going back to what I have already said, I fail to understand how focusing beyond infinity could happen, in practice. Am I missing something?While 'hyperfocal' might usually be the choice for a distant landscape, there are occasions where one might want the absolute sharpest plane of focus to be at 'infinity' and only use made of the DoF in the foreground. I often do this with large mountain masses, Alps etc, where the main 'interest' is the very distant peaks.
I all these cases AF is entirely redundant ironically. Give me a good MF lens with accurate hard stop infinity any day for that sort of thing.
Gerry
Gerry, one the one hand, I tend to believe others more, rather than less. On the other hand, I am a typical "Doubting Thomas" when it comes to hard facts. In your example, I would like to see for myself how the sharpness of the very distant peaks should change, and when it should change, if the focusing distance is shortened stepwise. In practice, for example, I would like to see a series of photos focused with an AF small spot: first with the spot on the peaks, then with this spot nudged down (e.g. with the camera joystick) the scene, assuming that the area under the very distant peaks in the scene extends toward the camera. I am not at all convinced that I would see an immediate change in sharpness of the peaks. In other words, I am not convinced that achieving the ultimate sharpness on the very distant peaks requires focussing near infinity. If you actually tested this and indeed found out that focussing near infinity is critical - then I am willing to take your word!
Dmitri
ruthenium wrote
I have been looking at the posts in this thread, and cannot help thinking that focus beyond infinity is a practical impossibility, in the simple sense that this implies that the decision on where to focus was delegated to the camera, and the person behind the camera just pushed the shutter without thinking. However, in real life, this couldn't happen to those who are familiar with basic ideas such as the hyperfocal distance, for instance?I am willing to be corrected, of course. If, actually, there are situations in landscape photography when it is better to focus at or near infinity, I would like to know when this can be appropriate or beneficial. When using AF, my usual way of focusing is with a small spot. When no prominent subject is present in a scene, and no obvious place to focus, I tend to have the focusing spot a bit under the center of the scene. Thus, going back to what I have already said, I fail to understand how focusing beyond infinity could happen, in practice. Am I missing something?
I all these cases AF is entirely redundant ironically. Give me a good MF lens with accurate hard stop infinity any day for that sort of thing.
Gerry
Gerry, one the one hand, I tend to believe others more, rather than less. On the other hand, I am a typical "Doubting Thomas" when it comes to hard facts. In your example, I would like to see for myself how the sharpness of the very distant peaks should change, and when it should change, if the focusing distance is shortened stepwise. In practice, for example, I would like to see a series of photos focused with an AF small spot: first with the spot on the peaks, then with this spot nudged down (e.g. with the camera joystick) the scene, assuming that the area under the very distant peaks in the scene extends toward the camera. I am not at all convinced that I would see an immediate change in sharpness of the peaks. In other words, I am not convinced that achieving the ultimate sharpness on the very distant peaks requires focussing near infinity. If you actually tested this and indeed found out that focussing near infinity is critical - then I am willing to take your word!
Dmitri
Jan 06, 2026 at 11:15 AM
p.2 #16Focus Beyond Infinity
If you want to get technical, "beyond infinity" is the same as infinity. I paid attention to my 9th grade math teacher.
Jan 06, 2026 at 11:41 AM
AmbientMike
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #17Focus Beyond Infinity
ruthenium wrote:
I have been looking at the posts in this thread, and cannot help thinking that focus beyond infinity is a practical impossibility, in the simple sense that this implies that the decision on where to focus was delegated to the camera, and the person behind the camera just pushed the shutter without thinking. However, in real life, this couldn't happen to those who are familiar with basic ideas such as the hyperfocal distance, for instance?
I am willing to be corrected, of course. If, actually, there are situations in landscape photography when it is better to focus at or near...Show more →
I quit using hyperfocal focusing a long time ago. Those dof scales on the old lenses are wildly optimistic, you kinda have to pick what you want in focus. Stopping down does help some, though
Dof calculators are presumably the same numbers as scales on old lenses, unless you can change circle of confusion
Jan 06, 2026 at 12:17 PM
p.2 #18Focus Beyond Infinity
SGinNorcal wrote:
If you want to get technical, "beyond infinity" is the same as infinity. I paid attention to my 9th grade math teacher.
On a lens, “infinity” is a focus position that would theoretically make subjects at infinity be in focus. Focusing “beyond infinity” simply means moving the focus setting on the lens to a point beyond the infinity focus setting.
Technically, I guess it isn’t “focusing beyond infinity, but rather it is setting the lens focus beyond its infinity setting.
The queston raised in this thread (and in a bunch of antecedent threads) by our OP is whether Fujjifilm’s AF moves the focus adjustment past the point at which the lens would focus on infinity.
If you want to get technical, "beyond infinity" is the same as infinity. I paid attention to my 9th grade math teacher.
On a lens, “infinity” is a focus position that would theoretically make subjects at infinity be in focus. Focusing “beyond infinity” simply means moving the focus setting on the lens to a point beyond the infinity focus setting.
Technically, I guess it isn’t “focusing beyond infinity, but rather it is setting the lens focus beyond its infinity setting.
The queston raised in this thread (and in a bunch of antecedent threads) by our OP is whether Fujjifilm’s AF moves the focus adjustment past the point at which the lens would focus on infinity.
Jan 06, 2026 at 01:17 PM
p.2 #19Focus Beyond Infinity
The OP also asserts this is a problem with Fuji wide zooms. Wanting to focus on distant mountains is mostly going to involve telephoto compositions. Wide angle lens compositions always have something in the foreground that one would want to focus on.
Jan 06, 2026 at 01:43 PM
p.2 #20Focus Beyond Infinity
SGinNorcal wrote:
If you want to get technical, "beyond infinity" is the same as infinity. I paid attention to my 9th grade math teacher.
Which is why I always put 'beyond infinity' in quotes. Technically you are reducing the distance between the nodal point of the lens from the recording medium to less than the focal length. Phraseology introduced with lenses with aspheric and other exotic glass elements which are susceptible to a change in focal length affected by temperature. So the focussing helical has to allow movement beyond the marked infinity which is engraved for a 'normal' temperature range. M ost lenses are not significantly affected by temperature variation, in my MF 'collection' the only lens I ever have had (and still have) is a Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 AiS.
AF mechanisms have to do it to allow the system to go beyond any point of focus and return to a sharpest point arrived at by going backwards and forwards till 'focus' is achieved. My early Nikon af, F 801, will hunt backwards and forwards 'forever' given a low contrast subject.
Gerry
Edited on Jan 06, 2026 at 02:44 PM · View previous versions
If you want to get technical, "beyond infinity" is the same as infinity. I paid attention to my 9th grade math teacher.
Which is why I always put 'beyond infinity' in quotes. Technically you are reducing the distance between the nodal point of the lens from the recording medium to less than the focal length. Phraseology introduced with lenses with aspheric and other exotic glass elements which are susceptible to a change in focal length affected by temperature. So the focussing helical has to allow movement beyond the marked infinity which is engraved for a 'normal' temperature range. M ost lenses are not significantly affected by temperature variation, in my MF 'collection' the only lens I ever have had (and still have) is a Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 AiS.
AF mechanisms have to do it to allow the system to go beyond any point of focus and return to a sharpest point arrived at by going backwards and forwards till 'focus' is achieved. My early Nikon af, F 801, will hunt backwards and forwards 'forever' given a low contrast subject.
Gerry
Edited on Jan 06, 2026 at 02:44 PM · View previous versions
Jan 06, 2026 at 02:25 PM