RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.1823 #1 · Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread | |
genji wrote:
Mitch, by zone focusing I meant that, rather than using the rangefinder to achieve accurate focus on a subject, one uses depth of field to achieve a “zone” of acceptable focus. I’m sure you’re familiar with the technique, perhaps under a different name.
For those two pictures I set the distance scale on the Summaron 35/2.8 to 8 feet and stopped down to f/8. Assuming a blur spot diameter of 30 microns (a commonly accepted value for 35mm full frame format), an app on my phone indicates that the depth of field extends from 5.5 feet to 15 feet. But, looking closely at the pictures, I’d like them to be a little sharper so on my next outing I’ll lower the blur spot diameter to 20 microns, which means that I’ll need to stop down to f/11 to get roughly the same depth of field. Purists would be complaining about diffraction with these aperture values but I believe that the loss of sharpness caused by diffraction will be offset by the extra sharpness afforded by the narrower aperture. And not having to manually focus the Leica means that one can “focus” (heheh) solely on framing the picture.
Full disclosure: a couple of months ago I also started doing street photography with a Sony A7R4 and a 35/1.4 GM lens wide open, relying on Sony’s real time tracking AF. This is pretty much the polar opposite of zone focusing and produces a totally different kind of picture. I like both approaches but using the Leica is more challenging and thus more rewarding when one gets a pleasing result....Show more →
+1 to Allen as being a strong advocate for Zone Focusing.
Back in the day (before AF existed), it was well used by many folks. Essentially, the same as hyperfocal technique, and working your way backwards to closer distances. The old adage of "f/8 and be there" was well regarded as time honored technique.
As I am re-acquainting my skills to zone focusing, I'll share my thoughts on my re-development approach, which may seem a bit counter-intuitive at first glance.
Rather than relying on f/11 for the greater DOF (which is fine in good light), that essentially makes your distance judgment skills less important. It does likely mean you'll have more in acceptable focus and maybe even seem as a higher keeper rate for doing so.
Instead of having more "wiggle room" with f/11, I'm working at using f4.5 where I've got less wiggle room. That does a couple things ... it makes me be more conscious of having to develop my ability to gauge distance. Ultimately, I think that is the key to using Zone Focusing most effectively. Of course, with f/4.5 the DOF range is smaller. So, to contend with that, I've got TWO setpoints in my mind that cover two different ranges (three with infinity).
Zone One: 1-2 body lengths. I can imagine how far away something is if I "stretch out" to touch it ... and about double that.
Zone Two: 1-2 car lengths. Starts around 12 feet - 30 feet
Zone Three: Hyperfocal Infinity, starts around 15-20 (lens dependent, of course).
Other times, maybe I split the diff between One and Two. Just depends on my assessment of my relationship to my environment. But, my main point is that you may want to have a couple different zones at your pre-determined ranges, rather than trying to have one zone to cover more with more DOF at f/11. This or that, vs all. Reminds me a bit of the movie Top Gun, where the scene is switching from missiles to guns ... just recognize when to toggle between range one vs. range two.
I think part of the key to judging distance is to have something pre-established in mental reference. I also use the width of a car lane as a mental reference, for example. If I'm shooting across a two-laner, vs. a four laner ... well, you get the gist.
Depending on my traveling distance from things, I set it for one of the Zones. Then, as things (or you) move into that zone, you're there. When I transition into a different shooting environment, then I reposition the lens to the different zone. Zone Two is my "ready position" (tennis term), for me. On the fly adjustments (shorter / closer) can be made to either side from there to either Zone 1 or Hyper Zone. Then, back to Zone 2 to resume the "ready position". In that regard, it isn't a question of how far is it ... just is it closer or farther. You might also check with Allen about his "Peace Sign" perspective.
Back to shooting at f/4.5 ...
When I used to practice billiards, I would go find a snooker table. Those tiny little pockets with those dastardly rounded edges made for a terrible billiards shooting experience. BUT, when I returned to shooting on a regular billiards tables, the pockets seemed so much larger. And, when I went from a snooker table to a shorter table, it also was another level in how much easier it was.
By shooting at f/4.5, I'm forcing my eye / brain to recognize and grow with a tighter tolerance, than if I'm shooting at f/8 or f/11. That's not to say I don't or won't shoot at f/8 or f/11 for any number of reasons. BUT, as a SKILL BUILDING effort, I wouldn't hang out at f/11 too much ... or you're eye / brain distance judging abilities will soften, rather than sharpen. Kind of a "wax on, wax off" thing. That's not to suggest miss an important capture with f4.5 instead of f/11, ... but, for skill building exercises, I think pushing yourself is more beneficial (long term) to developing that distance judging thing into an autonomy ... aim small, miss small. 
I'm sure others have good stuff for how to approach things, as well. But, that's where my head is on it, atm.
OTOH, if f/11 works for ya ... "f/11 and be there". 
|
