Hyperfocal Setting on Lumix Cameras

[rgeorge911]

I was able to find out that the DMC-GF1 automatically sets hyperfocal distance if you set the f-stop, put the camera in manual focus mode, then cycle the power.

I have not completely confirmed that the same works on the G3, but a quick test now sure looks that way.

I have a post on this on my blog, which is specifically about Lumix cameras and how I use and enjoy them:

http://dmc-365.blogspot.com/2012/01/hyperfocal-distance-and-how-to-use-it.html

Tomorrow's post will show examples shot woth the GF1 using this technique.

Has anyone else tried this in the G3? It seems to work in my hands.

Reed
DMC-365.blogspot.com

 

[pellicle]

I was able to find out that the DMC-GF1 automatically sets hyperfocal distance if you set the f-stop, put the camera in manual focus mode, then cycle the power.

interesting ... some more examples would have made that blog post more useful

 

[rgeorge911]

Thanks. As I said above, tomorrow's post has examples.

Reed

 

[rgeorge911]

Two examples posted today:
http://dmc-365.blogspot.com/2012/01/another-gf1-hyperfocal-example.html

Thanks!
Reed

 

[pellicle]

Two examples posted today:
http://dmc-365.blogspot.com/2012/01/another-gf1-hyperfocal-example.html

thats the example?

hmmm

 

[rgeorge911]

Hi, Pellicle. I am always willing to listen to feedback. That piece is not useful for anyone.

Thanks for looking.

Reed

 

[pellicle]

Hi, Pellicle. I am always willing to listen to feedback. That piece is not useful for anyone.

ok ... but then you aren't paying me much for my time either. For free I expressed that it wasn't much of an example. For more free advice I'll suggest that you could show more clearly HOW that was an example of the hyperfocal and not just a coincidence of using f8 on a lens which would give almost anything in focus as long as it didn't focus at 1M from the lens.

you know ... stuff which supports and demonstrates your assertion that the camera refocus on power cycle to the hyperfocal length not just somewhere near infinity and DoF covers it ...

I mean I've almost written more here than in your example ... and I assmume you're trying to put together a site which will attract people by informing them and teaching them something

 

[rgeorge911]

Pellicle,

Thank you. Your assumption about my goal is correct, and I can now take your thoughts into consideration.

Paying for time is an interesting thought. I'd wager I've made the same per hour on my efforts that you have (or less). But, that's not what I'm in it for.

Actually, I do find it difficult to confirm that what you say isn't happening. With a 20mm lens at f8 on a small sensor, it's difficult to find something unfocused. I am trying to share things that work for me, and this does. I am technically-oriented in my real work, and have no interest in calculating the limits of dof and then taking a picture of something I care nothing about to prove that an object closer to the camera than that is out of focus. But, I certainly accept your point that I have proven nothing.

Thanks again.

Reed

 

[pellicle]

Pellicle,

Thank you. Your assumption about my goal is correct, and I can now take your thoughts into consideration.

Paying for time is an interesting thought. I'd wager I've made the same per hour on my efforts that you have (or less). But, that's not what I'm in it for.

well I have found that (in my professional area) that helping people for nothing and they don't value what I do for them (say, putting up a web page for them), but if I charge them for it (and do what I would have done for free) somehow they think more of it and consider not wasting my time. Not that I'm saying that about this interaction (which I think has gone well).

I also publish quite a bit for fee on stuff on my blog, some about scanning, some about lenses, some about technique. I have no ads on my blog and do not take any income from that. I do it because I like to share and if that helps someone then all the better. Some of my pages average 200 hits a week, so it must be helping someone (or they're just having fun reading it).

 

[pellicle]

Actually, I do find it difficult to confirm that what you say isn't happening. With a 20mm lens at f8 on a small sensor, it's difficult to find something unfocused.

repeat your experiment at f1.7 and see if the focal point is consistent between power cycles ... would be a good place to start

 

[JohnW]

This would be a great feature, if true. But whether I set the aperture to 16 or 1.7, when I turn the camera off and on, the lens seems to be focused on the same point.

John

 

[RichA]

interesting ... some more examples would have made that blog post more useful

Exactly how effective is being able to set a hyperfocal distance with today's cameras? The digitals today have twice the linear resolution of the best 100 speed film (combined with excellent lenses) cameras of yesteryear, so the digitals have a narrower tolerance for focus depth. So if (arbitrary example) hyperfocal depth with a film camera was 2ft at a particular setting, would it be only 1ft with a digital before defocusing became apparent?