Focus Beyond Infinity
p.3 #1Focus Beyond Infinity
AmbientMike 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?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
Let's not stray into DoF discussion, merely gives you chance to air your lack of understanding of the 'phenomenon' yet again.
Gerry
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?
Dof calculators are presumably the same numbers as scales on old lenses, unless you can change circle of confusion
Let's not stray into DoF discussion, merely gives you chance to air your lack of understanding of the 'phenomenon' yet again.
Gerry
Jan 06, 2026 at 02:28 PM
p.3 #2Focus Beyond Infinity
Jack Flesher 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.
GerryThere 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.
Every Leica rangefinder lens (and body) I have owned is adjusted so that it reaches infinity at the hard stop, and the rangefinder 'split' disappears at that. Done on a collimtor. Any rangefinder system has to be capable of that.
I have watched a camera repairer adjust manual focus lenses on a collimator to do precisely that with Pentax and Nikon MF lenses too. The vast majority of lenses are not affected by temperatures encounteredin normal use, only needed with exotic glass types. The mount will be designed to cope too, often of brass.
I have spent my life using Leica and Nikon MF lenses using the scales and hard infinity stop for distant landscape, without problems.
Gerry
gyoung143 wrote
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
Every Leica rangefinder lens (and body) I have owned is adjusted so that it reaches infinity at the hard stop, and the rangefinder 'split' disappears at that. Done on a collimtor. Any rangefinder system has to be capable of that.
I have watched a camera repairer adjust manual focus lenses on a collimator to do precisely that with Pentax and Nikon MF lenses too. The vast majority of lenses are not affected by temperatures encounteredin normal use, only needed with exotic glass types. The mount will be designed to cope too, often of brass.
I have spent my life using Leica and Nikon MF lenses using the scales and hard infinity stop for distant landscape, without problems.
Gerry
Jan 06, 2026 at 02:41 PM
p.3 #3Focus 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.
GerryThere 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.Every Leica rangefinder lens (and body) I have owned is adjusted so that it reaches infinity at the hard stop, and the rangefinder 'split' disappears at that. Done on a collimtor. Any rangefinder system has to be capable of that.
I have watched a camera repairer adjust manual focus lenses on a collimator to do precisely that with Pentax and Nikon MF lenses too. The vast majority of lenses are not affected by temperatures encounteredin normal use, only needed with exotic glass types. The mount will be designed to cope too, often of brass.
I have spent my life using Leica and...Show more →
The same applies to Canon FD lenses. The hard stop is at infinity. In practice this might have meant focus was set to 50 metres or thereabouts for shorter focal length primes but longer for teles, with the wide open aperture DoF taking care of the rest. That said, the lenses would not have been designed for 40mp APSc sensors viewed at 200 per cent.
Jack Flesher wrote
gyoung143 wrote
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
I have watched a camera repairer adjust manual focus lenses on a collimator to do precisely that with Pentax and Nikon MF lenses too. The vast majority of lenses are not affected by temperatures encounteredin normal use, only needed with exotic glass types. The mount will be designed to cope too, often of brass.
I have spent my life using Leica and...Show more →
The same applies to Canon FD lenses. The hard stop is at infinity. In practice this might have meant focus was set to 50 metres or thereabouts for shorter focal length primes but longer for teles, with the wide open aperture DoF taking care of the rest. That said, the lenses would not have been designed for 40mp APSc sensors viewed at 200 per cent.
Jan 06, 2026 at 04:22 PM
p.3 #4Focus Beyond Infinity
gdanmitchell wrote:
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.
Yah, I know what the intent is here in the context of cameras. And how it seems to keep coming back around for more comments. I should have known better than to comment.
SGinNorcal wrote
If you want to get technical, "beyond infinity" is the same as infinity. I paid attention to my 9th grade math teacher.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.
Yah, I know what the intent is here in the context of cameras. And how it seems to keep coming back around for more comments. I should have known better than to comment.
Jan 06, 2026 at 04:54 PM
p.3 #5Focus 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.
GerryThere 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.Every Leica rangefinder lens (and body) I have owned is adjusted so that it reaches infinity at the hard stop, and the rangefinder 'split' disappears at that. Done on a collimtor. Any rangefinder system has to be capable of that.
I have watched a camera repairer adjust manual focus lenses on a collimator to do precisely that with Pentax and Nikon MF lenses too. The vast majority of lenses are not affected by temperatures encounteredin normal use, only needed with exotic glass types. The mount will be designed to cope too, often of brass.
I have spent my life using Leica and...Show more →
Per a web search, bold underlining mine:
Hard Stop: You should feel a distinct physical end when reaching the infinity mark, a feature consistent with Leica's reputation for tactile quality.
Tolerance & Calibration: The actual focus point at the hard stop might not be perfectly aligned with true infinity for distant objects (like the moon), especially with fast lenses (f/2 or wider) or telephotos (75mm, 90mm, 135mm), due to lens design or camera rangefinder (RF) calibration.
Design Variation: Some lens designs allow focusing slightly past the infinity mark (focusing "beyond infinity") to compensate for temperature changes or variations.
Practicality: For most everyday shooting, the hard stop at infinity works perfectly, but for precise critical work (astrophotography, distant landscapes), a technician might adjust past the lens's infinity point.
Jack Flesher wrote
gyoung143 wrote
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
I have watched a camera repairer adjust manual focus lenses on a collimator to do precisely that with Pentax and Nikon MF lenses too. The vast majority of lenses are not affected by temperatures encounteredin normal use, only needed with exotic glass types. The mount will be designed to cope too, often of brass.
I have spent my life using Leica and...Show more →
Per a web search, bold underlining mine:
Hard Stop: You should feel a distinct physical end when reaching the infinity mark, a feature consistent with Leica's reputation for tactile quality.
Tolerance & Calibration: The actual focus point at the hard stop might not be perfectly aligned with true infinity for distant objects (like the moon), especially with fast lenses (f/2 or wider) or telephotos (75mm, 90mm, 135mm), due to lens design or camera rangefinder (RF) calibration.
Design Variation: Some lens designs allow focusing slightly past the infinity mark (focusing "beyond infinity") to compensate for temperature changes or variations.
Practicality: For most everyday shooting, the hard stop at infinity works perfectly, but for precise critical work (astrophotography, distant landscapes), a technician might adjust past the lens's infinity point.
Jan 06, 2026 at 05:37 PM
p.3 #6Focus Beyond Infinity
Jack Flesher wrote:
gyoung143 wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
gyoung143 wrote
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
I have watched a camera repairer adjust manual focus lenses on a collimator to do precisely that with Pentax and Nikon MF lenses too. The vast majority of lenses are not affected by temperatures encounteredin normal use, only needed with exotic glass types. The mount will be designed to cope too, often of brass.
I have spent my life using Leica and Nikon MF lenses using the scales and hard infinity stop for distant landscape, without problems.
Gerry
Hard Stop: You should feel a distinct physical end when reaching the infinity mark, a feature consistent with Leica's reputation for tactile quality.
Tolerance & Calibration: The actual focus point at the hard stop might not be perfectly aligned with true infinity for distant objects (like the moon), especially with fast lenses (f/2 or wider) or telephotos (75mm, 90mm, 135mm), due to lens design or camera rangefinder (RF) calibration.
Design Variation: Some lens designs allow focusing slightly past the infinity mark (focusing "beyond infinity") to compensate for temperature changes or variations.
Practicality: For most everyday...Show more →
Obviously the accuracy of the rangefinder system depends on accurate adjustment. I cannot see what purpose would be served by doing what is underlined in your final paragraph, or how you could use it in practice.
Exotics that show focus shift on stopping down need special treatment, but they are not intended for work at large distances anyway.
Gerry
Jan 07, 2026 at 01:18 AM
p.3 #7Focus Beyond Infinity
I wonder if we are diverging from the central question, namely whether Fujifilm cameras/lenses move the focus point past the point for infinity focus when using AF?
My experience with Fujifilm primes and the XT5 is that I could not see this happening. I see some results with Fujifilm zooms in some situations that could be explained by that, but at this point I cannot confirm the connection.
My experience with Fujifilm primes and the XT5 is that I could not see this happening. I see some results with Fujifilm zooms in some situations that could be explained by that, but at this point I cannot confirm the connection.
Jan 07, 2026 at 08:05 AM
p.3 #8Focus Beyond Infinity
AmbientMike wrote:
Did a lot of bird photography at one point. Shooting out of a warm car using a telephoto when its cold out: forget it.
I learned this recently when trying to photograph a Night Heron on a very cold day out the window of my truck. After reading up a bit I also learned that as the warm air in your car mixes with the cold air outside then it creates turbulent air around the window and in front of the lens which makes everything look... not great
Everything was just.. a bit soft. I was pretty disappointed too because it was the first time I had a chance to photograph a Night Heron. 
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.I learned this recently when trying to photograph a Night Heron on a very cold day out the window of my truck. After reading up a bit I also learned that as the warm air in your car mixes with the cold air outside then it creates turbulent air around the window and in front of the lens which makes everything look... not great
Everything was just.. a bit soft. I was pretty disappointed too because it was the first time I had a chance to photograph a Night Heron. Jan 07, 2026 at 09:02 AM
p.3 #9Focus Beyond Infinity
gdanmitchell wrote:
I wonder if we are diverging from the central question, namely whether Fujifilm cameras/lenses move the focus point past the point for infinity focus when using AF?
My experience with Fujifilm primes and the XT5 is that I could not see this happening. I see some results with Fujifilm zooms in some situations that could be explained by that, but at this point I cannot confirm the connection.
I think the point that some of us are wondering is why does it matter if Fujifilm cameras *can sometimes* move the focus point past the point for infinity focus when using AF? In practice for many of us this would never affect our shooting. We rarely would ever set focus for the infinity point and if we did we would check it carefully to make sure that the camera didn't focus past the infinity point. This issue is simply a non-issue for our shooting.
Personally, I don't doubt that sometimes the camera or the user might set focus past the infinity focus point. I also think that if that is true it matters exactly zero for my use of the cameras.
I wonder if we are diverging from the central question, namely whether Fujifilm cameras/lenses move the focus point past the point for infinity focus when using AF?
My experience with Fujifilm primes and the XT5 is that I could not see this happening. I see some results with Fujifilm zooms in some situations that could be explained by that, but at this point I cannot confirm the connection.
I think the point that some of us are wondering is why does it matter if Fujifilm cameras *can sometimes* move the focus point past the point for infinity focus when using AF? In practice for many of us this would never affect our shooting. We rarely would ever set focus for the infinity point and if we did we would check it carefully to make sure that the camera didn't focus past the infinity point. This issue is simply a non-issue for our shooting.
Personally, I don't doubt that sometimes the camera or the user might set focus past the infinity focus point. I also think that if that is true it matters exactly zero for my use of the cameras.
Jan 07, 2026 at 09:54 AM
p.3 #10Focus Beyond Infinity
Steve Spencer wrote:
My experience with Fujifilm primes and the XT5 is that I could not see this happening. I see some results with Fujifilm zooms in some situations that could be explained by that, but at this point I cannot confirm the connection.I think the point that some of us are wondering is why does it matter if Fujifilm cameras *can sometimes* move the focus point past the point for infinity focus when using AF? In practice for many of us this would never affect our shooting. We rarely would ever set focus for the infinity point and if we did we would check it carefully to make sure that the camera didn't focus past the infinity point. This issue is simply a non-issue for our shooting.
Personally, I don't doubt that sometimes the camera or the user might set focus past...Show more →
That was essentially my position with the original posts in this long series from Mike, starting well over a year ago. His claim, as I recall it, was that if you used Fujifilm wide angle prime lenses and shot apertures around, say, f/8 the lens would “focus past infinity” and do so inconsistently.
My initial response was that it would not really matter because a) I had shot such lenses in this way for years and never seen a problem and b) if the AF point was a bit too distant at f/8, it was likely taht there would be no visible effect in the photograph anyway.
The discussion continued, so I did a bunch of test shots using moderately wide Fujifilm lenses in this way, going so far as to shoot subjects with the potential to “mislead” the AF system… but I could not replicate the supposed problem.
My conclusion regarding that original claim: I could never see the problem despite trying to induce it.
In fact, I get very sharp photographs from my Fujifilm primes, typically for street and travel photography. These include 14mm, 23mm, 27mm, 35mm, 50mm, 80mm nad 90mm Fujifilm primes.
However, I do see some issues with Fujifilm zoom lenses that could (but not necessarily) be explained by focusing beyond the infinitely setting on these lenses. It is something that has concerned me for a while now, so I’m interested in looking into it more carefully. (I have the earlier 16-55 f/2.8, 50-150mm f/2.8, and the variable aperture 100-400mm lens.)
As I mentioned earlier, I see sharpness issues with my Fujifilm zoom lenenses that I’ve been unable to sort out. I know how to make sharp photographs with such lenses, and I don’t have the issue with my comparable Canon FF cameras and lenses. In some situations I get excellent sharpness from these lenses — typically with subjects at closer-than-“infinity” distances — but in other cases I don’t. (I initially starIted to see the issue when I was investigating whether I could use Fujifilm in place of my Canon gear for bird photography.)
I hope to try some carefully controlled experiments to see if I can nail down what is happening. (I did some quick experiments a month or two ago, with the camera on the tripod, EFCS, and a remote release… and I wasn’t getting the expected accurate results, but I need to try it again in a more methodical way.
Because I disagreed — strongly — with Mike’s earlier contentions about Fujifilm wide angle primes and tested to confirm my experience, it feels a bit awkward to entertain the possibility (and at this point it is no more than that) that there could be something to this, but I need to consider it now. I’m having issues that DO matter in my use of the cameras and lenses, and I need to consider various possible explanations.
gdanmitchell wrote
I wonder if we are diverging from the central question, namely whether Fujifilm cameras/lenses move the focus point past the point for infinity focus when using AF?My experience with Fujifilm primes and the XT5 is that I could not see this happening. I see some results with Fujifilm zooms in some situations that could be explained by that, but at this point I cannot confirm the connection.
Personally, I don't doubt that sometimes the camera or the user might set focus past...Show more →
That was essentially my position with the original posts in this long series from Mike, starting well over a year ago. His claim, as I recall it, was that if you used Fujifilm wide angle prime lenses and shot apertures around, say, f/8 the lens would “focus past infinity” and do so inconsistently.
My initial response was that it would not really matter because a) I had shot such lenses in this way for years and never seen a problem and b) if the AF point was a bit too distant at f/8, it was likely taht there would be no visible effect in the photograph anyway.
The discussion continued, so I did a bunch of test shots using moderately wide Fujifilm lenses in this way, going so far as to shoot subjects with the potential to “mislead” the AF system… but I could not replicate the supposed problem.
My conclusion regarding that original claim: I could never see the problem despite trying to induce it.
In fact, I get very sharp photographs from my Fujifilm primes, typically for street and travel photography. These include 14mm, 23mm, 27mm, 35mm, 50mm, 80mm nad 90mm Fujifilm primes.
However, I do see some issues with Fujifilm zoom lenses that could (but not necessarily) be explained by focusing beyond the infinitely setting on these lenses. It is something that has concerned me for a while now, so I’m interested in looking into it more carefully. (I have the earlier 16-55 f/2.8, 50-150mm f/2.8, and the variable aperture 100-400mm lens.)
As I mentioned earlier, I see sharpness issues with my Fujifilm zoom lenenses that I’ve been unable to sort out. I know how to make sharp photographs with such lenses, and I don’t have the issue with my comparable Canon FF cameras and lenses. In some situations I get excellent sharpness from these lenses — typically with subjects at closer-than-“infinity” distances — but in other cases I don’t. (I initially starIted to see the issue when I was investigating whether I could use Fujifilm in place of my Canon gear for bird photography.)
I hope to try some carefully controlled experiments to see if I can nail down what is happening. (I did some quick experiments a month or two ago, with the camera on the tripod, EFCS, and a remote release… and I wasn’t getting the expected accurate results, but I need to try it again in a more methodical way.
Because I disagreed — strongly — with Mike’s earlier contentions about Fujifilm wide angle primes and tested to confirm my experience, it feels a bit awkward to entertain the possibility (and at this point it is no more than that) that there could be something to this, but I need to consider it now. I’m having issues that DO matter in my use of the cameras and lenses, and I need to consider various possible explanations.
Jan 07, 2026 at 10:06 AM
|
AmbientMike
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #11Focus 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?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 confusionLet's not stray into DoF discussion, merely gives you chance to air your lack of understanding of the 'phenomenon' yet again.
Gerry
As long as you claim to have been in photography, you still apparently haven't figured it out.
But feel free to get unsharp images using focusing scales and focusing hyperfocally.
AmbientMike wrote
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?
Dof calculators are presumably the same numbers as scales on old lenses, unless you can change circle of confusion
Gerry
As long as you claim to have been in photography, you still apparently haven't figured it out.
But feel free to get unsharp images using focusing scales and focusing hyperfocally.
Jan 07, 2026 at 10:18 AM
AmbientMike
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #12Focus Beyond Infinity
gdanmitchell wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
I wonder if we are diverging from the central question, namely whether Fujifilm cameras/lenses move the focus point past the point for infinity focus when using AF?My experience with Fujifilm primes and the XT5 is that I could not see this happening. I see some results with Fujifilm zooms in some situations that could be explained by that, but at this point I cannot confirm the connection.
Personally, I don't doubt that sometimes the camera or the user might set focus past the infinity focus point. I also think that if that is true it matters exactly zero for my use of the cameras.
My initial response was that it would not really matter because a) I had shot such lenses in this way for years and never seen a problem and b) if the AF point was a bit too distant at f/8, it was likely taht there would be...Show more →
It would be great if f/8 actually smeared over focusing errors on landscape. Maybe on really tiny errors, but mostly good luck with all that.
Jan 07, 2026 at 10:27 AM
p.3 #13Focus Beyond Infinity
AmbientMike 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?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 confusionLet's not stray into DoF discussion, merely gives you chance to air your lack of understanding of the 'phenomenon' yet again.
GerryAs long as you claim to have been in photography, you still apparently haven't figured it out.
But feel free to get unsharp images using focusing scales and focusing hyperfocally.
It amazes me how many people are happy using these crude approximations instead of just focusing accurately on their subject. It may have worked in the days of film (when there weren't many better alternatives) but with digital sensors, missing the plane of focus by even a small amount sticks out like a sore thumb.
But enough of that... I really don't want to be prolonging the OP's troll-fest here.
gyoung143 wrote
AmbientMike wrote
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?
Dof calculators are presumably the same numbers as scales on old lenses, unless you can change circle of confusion
Gerry
But feel free to get unsharp images using focusing scales and focusing hyperfocally.
It amazes me how many people are happy using these crude approximations instead of just focusing accurately on their subject. It may have worked in the days of film (when there weren't many better alternatives) but with digital sensors, missing the plane of focus by even a small amount sticks out like a sore thumb.
But enough of that... I really don't want to be prolonging the OP's troll-fest here.
Jan 07, 2026 at 12:22 PM
AmbientMike
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #14Focus Beyond Infinity
Cliff L. wrote:
AmbientMike wrote
gyoung143 wrote
AmbientMike wrote
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?
Dof calculators are presumably the same numbers as scales on old lenses, unless you can change circle of confusion
Gerry
But feel free to get unsharp images using focusing scales and focusing hyperfocally.
I remember seeing it on a 4x6 print, of a hyperfocally focused photo, even
Jan 07, 2026 at 12:24 PM
p.3 #15Focus Beyond Infinity
What appears eminently clear from reading this thread is that a few of the posters have never made actual images, and are most likely arm-chair experts trying to appear erudite.
Jan 07, 2026 at 01:02 PM
p.3 #16Focus Beyond Infinity
To me, it looks like sharpness is better in the foreground to mid ground than farther out. I'm looking at the rocks in the background to the right vs. the rocks and posts in the front. Maybe the focus missed but at close focus rather than past infinity?
Jan 07, 2026 at 08:41 PM
p.3 #17Focus Beyond Infinity
Cliff L. 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?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 confusionLet's not stray into DoF discussion, merely gives you chance to air your lack of understanding of the 'phenomenon' yet again.
GerryAs long as you claim to have been in photography, you still apparently haven't figured it out.
But feel free to get unsharp images using focusing scales and focusing hyperfocally.It amazes me how many people are happy using these crude approximations instead of just focusing accurately on their subject. It may have worked in the days of film (when there weren't many better alternatives) but with digital sensors, missing the plane of focus by even a small amount sticks out like a sore thumb.
But enough of that... I really don't want to be prolonging the OP's troll-fest here.
Nothing has changed with digital. There is and always has been only one plane of sharpest focus. The theory of DoF which allows hyperfocal focussing too is the same, the human eye and brain have not suddenly become more discerning as to what is 'sharp' when looking at a complete image at 'normal viewing distance'.
What has changed is the ease with which we can view parts of an image at great magnification, 200% on a monitor. This will betray the illusion on which DoF is based instantly, just as a similar exercise on an enlarger baseboard with a magnifier does.
But without DoF much landscape photography child not be achieved, and you can 'prove' this to yourself easily. Set up the camera in front of and distant view, focus on the distant hills, take 2 photos at f/2 and f/8 changing the shutter speed to maintain similar exposure but leaving the focus unchanged. Compare the whole image from both, the hills should be the same but the foreground detail will be sharper in the shot at f/8. The shot at f/2 -will probably be unusable of you wanted some sharpness in the foreground, but th shot at f/8 will be better. How else will you achieve that without admitting that traditional DoF has a place in 'modern' photography. Yes you could do focus stacking, but that limits you to subjects with no movement.
Gerry
AmbientMike wrote
gyoung143 wrote
AmbientMike wrote
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?
Dof calculators are presumably the same numbers as scales on old lenses, unless you can change circle of confusion
Gerry
But feel free to get unsharp images using focusing scales and focusing hyperfocally.
But enough of that... I really don't want to be prolonging the OP's troll-fest here.
Nothing has changed with digital. There is and always has been only one plane of sharpest focus. The theory of DoF which allows hyperfocal focussing too is the same, the human eye and brain have not suddenly become more discerning as to what is 'sharp' when looking at a complete image at 'normal viewing distance'.
What has changed is the ease with which we can view parts of an image at great magnification, 200% on a monitor. This will betray the illusion on which DoF is based instantly, just as a similar exercise on an enlarger baseboard with a magnifier does.
But without DoF much landscape photography child not be achieved, and you can 'prove' this to yourself easily. Set up the camera in front of and distant view, focus on the distant hills, take 2 photos at f/2 and f/8 changing the shutter speed to maintain similar exposure but leaving the focus unchanged. Compare the whole image from both, the hills should be the same but the foreground detail will be sharper in the shot at f/8. The shot at f/2 -will probably be unusable of you wanted some sharpness in the foreground, but th shot at f/8 will be better. How else will you achieve that without admitting that traditional DoF has a place in 'modern' photography. Yes you could do focus stacking, but that limits you to subjects with no movement.
Gerry
Jan 09, 2026 at 03:53 AM
p.3 #18Focus Beyond Infinity
In any case, for serious landscape photography (almost certainly done from the tripod) rather than relying on guesses it is often better to just zoom in on the rear screen, press the DOF preview button, and inspect elements that you need to have in focus to see if they are sharp enough. (Or, as a backup, make a few additional exposures at closer/farther focus points in case you need to combine images in post to deal with softness issues.)
And, as pointed out above, DOF prediction is a very subjective thing. While there are ways to quantify the amount of blur at particular apertures and distances in front/back of the plane of focus, the significance of those things is not a constant. When people rarely made prints larger than 11x14 from 35mm film images (and often smaller than that), a certain level of softness was acceptable and DOF charts (and indications on lens barrels) indicated that. But today we may use the same capture area (24mm x 36mm) to produce much, much larger images, and in those that formerly acceptable level of softness is no longer OK.
And if you disagree, that’s why I used the term “subjective thing.”
And, as pointed out above, DOF prediction is a very subjective thing. While there are ways to quantify the amount of blur at particular apertures and distances in front/back of the plane of focus, the significance of those things is not a constant. When people rarely made prints larger than 11x14 from 35mm film images (and often smaller than that), a certain level of softness was acceptable and DOF charts (and indications on lens barrels) indicated that. But today we may use the same capture area (24mm x 36mm) to produce much, much larger images, and in those that formerly acceptable level of softness is no longer OK.
And if you disagree, that’s why I used the term “subjective thing.”
Jan 09, 2026 at 10:26 AM
p.3 #19Focus 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?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 confusionLet's not stray into DoF discussion, merely gives you chance to air your lack of understanding of the 'phenomenon' yet again.
GerryAs long as you claim to have been in photography, you still apparently haven't figured it out.
But feel free to get unsharp images using focusing scales and focusing hyperfocally.It amazes me how many people are happy using these crude approximations instead of just focusing accurately on their subject. It may have worked in the days of film (when there weren't many better alternatives) but with digital sensors, missing the plane of focus by even a small amount sticks out like a sore thumb.
But enough of that... I really don't want to be prolonging the OP's troll-fest here.Nothing has changed with digital. There is and always has been only one plane of sharpest focus. The theory of DoF which allows hyperfocal focussing too is the same, the human eye and brain have not suddenly become more discerning as to what is 'sharp' when looking at a complete image at 'normal viewing distance'.
What has changed is the ease with which we can view parts of an image at great magnification, 200% on a monitor. This will betray the illusion on which DoF is based instantly, just as a similar exercise on an enlarger baseboard with a magnifier does.
But...Show more →
My point is that guessing where the plane of focus should be and then hoping that the DOF is sufficient to render the desired parts of the scene in sharp focus trips up a lot of people - as evidenced by countless threads like this one.
Cliff L. wrote
AmbientMike wrote
gyoung143 wrote
AmbientMike wrote
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?
Dof calculators are presumably the same numbers as scales on old lenses, unless you can change circle of confusion
Gerry
But feel free to get unsharp images using focusing scales and focusing hyperfocally.
But enough of that... I really don't want to be prolonging the OP's troll-fest here.
What has changed is the ease with which we can view parts of an image at great magnification, 200% on a monitor. This will betray the illusion on which DoF is based instantly, just as a similar exercise on an enlarger baseboard with a magnifier does.
But...Show more →
My point is that guessing where the plane of focus should be and then hoping that the DOF is sufficient to render the desired parts of the scene in sharp focus trips up a lot of people - as evidenced by countless threads like this one.
Jan 09, 2026 at 10:42 AM
p.3 #20Focus Beyond Infinity
gyoung143 wrote:
Nothing has changed with digital. There is and always has been only one plane of sharpest focus. The theory of DoF which allows hyperfocal focussing too is the same, the human eye and brain have not suddenly become more discerning as to what is 'sharp' when looking at a complete image at 'normal viewing distance'.
What has changed is the ease with which we can view parts of an image at great magnification, 200% on a monitor. This will betray the illusion on which DoF is based instantly, just as a similar exercise on an enlarger baseboard with a magnifier does.
Gerry
Very good point about the ease of magnification. Also, the plane of sharpest focus is theoretical -- lenses can't focus all rays perfectly onto one plane, instead they capture the parallel plane closest to the plane of sharpest focus. The difference between those two planes is illustrated in the circle of confusion.
Advances in lens technology have improved the proximity that a lens can get that perfect plane of focus. So while our eyes have not necessarily become more discerning (arguably human vision, particularly nearsightedness, has declined over time population-wise), the images themselves have become sharper, i.e., lenses are constantly being developed with smaller and smaller circles of confusion.
Yet one irony of modern lens development is that we (as consumers and manufacturers) seem to be fixated on lenses that can deliver both maximum sharpness and minimum depth of field at the same time.
Nothing has changed with digital. There is and always has been only one plane of sharpest focus. The theory of DoF which allows hyperfocal focussing too is the same, the human eye and brain have not suddenly become more discerning as to what is 'sharp' when looking at a complete image at 'normal viewing distance'.
What has changed is the ease with which we can view parts of an image at great magnification, 200% on a monitor. This will betray the illusion on which DoF is based instantly, just as a similar exercise on an enlarger baseboard with a magnifier does.
Gerry
Very good point about the ease of magnification. Also, the plane of sharpest focus is theoretical -- lenses can't focus all rays perfectly onto one plane, instead they capture the parallel plane closest to the plane of sharpest focus. The difference between those two planes is illustrated in the circle of confusion.
Advances in lens technology have improved the proximity that a lens can get that perfect plane of focus. So while our eyes have not necessarily become more discerning (arguably human vision, particularly nearsightedness, has declined over time population-wise), the images themselves have become sharper, i.e., lenses are constantly being developed with smaller and smaller circles of confusion.
Yet one irony of modern lens development is that we (as consumers and manufacturers) seem to be fixated on lenses that can deliver both maximum sharpness and minimum depth of field at the same time.
Jan 09, 2026 at 11:39 AM