Which AF Area for Landscape Photography?

SnEm

SnEm

Suspended / Banned
Messages
71
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

I'm always in doubt as to which AF Area I have to use when shooting a landscape?
Should I go for Wide or Centered?

thx
 
markmullen said:
I'd go for manual focus personally.
Click to expand...
I do to.

The trouble comes for people with lenses without a focus scale.

Also the common advice to focus a third of the way in and use f22. Which is poor lazy advice IMO.
 
Last edited:
When shooting landscapes I generally will have some foreground interest so I use selective focus on that combined with a small aperture f16 which I bracket either side. Depends on the length of lens and sensor plane to subject, but as a rule of thumb it's a good starting point.
 
Last edited:
Blank_Canvas said:
When shooting landscapes I generally will have some foreground interest so I use selective focus on that combined with a small aperture f16 which I bracket either side. Depends on the length of lens and sensor plane to subject, but as a rule of thumb it's a good starting point.
Click to expand...

It is not advisable or necessary to f16 all the time. On my camera lens combo f16 should be avoided.

droj said:
With a dslr you use the focus screen - that's what it's there for.
Click to expand...

How will you set the lens to the hyperfocal distance?
 
depends on the lens you are using. typically if im shooting landscapes i prefer to shoot as wide as possible ( used to be with my 10-20 ) but now only have an 18mm. so on that f8 -f11 would be my max for best image sharpness, though if i do occassionally shoot on my nifty fifty then i'll go around 5.6- 8

then its using the lcd screen and manual focusing.
this was great on the fuji x-e1 as you had a zoom option to check your focus was spot on.. shame i cant do that on my 60D
 
markmullen said:
I'd go for manual focus personally.
Click to expand...
alfbranch said:
I do to.

The trouble comes for people with lenses without a focus scale.

Also the common advice to focus a third of the way in and use f22. Which is poor lazy advice IMO.
Click to expand...
Paul Male said:
:agree:
Click to expand...
Struggling to see the point in manual focus for landscapes, ok I can understand maybe for low light, macro or even portraiture but landscapes? When you have the ability to move the focus point to one of many areas dependant on where you want to focus manual focus seems a bit redundant. For example the 5d mkIII has something like 60 points in the viewfinder easily selectable giving you ample options in selecting a focus point for your hyperfocal distance.

Of course some might think your not a proper photographer unless you go manual ;)
 
For me it's a control thing, shooting events I select my focus point, using the rear joystick on the 5D3, I also use auto ISO, Av etc. Shooting landscapes I use manual focus with live view at full magnification if I'm using my 5D3, manual exposure etc, or ground glass and a loupe and a spot meter if I'm using my Linhof and digital back. Time is rarely of the essence and perfection is the goal.
 
for me it simply stems back to my old film days. shooting with an mtl5b and split prism focsuing.
when i upgraded to an all singing all dancing Minolta Dynax 7000i with auto this that and the other images were just never quite as sharp.
also add to that its all down to again what lens you are using.. a relatively cheap standard kit lens will have some issues focusing on some landscape shots and id rather trust my own judgement than that of the camera.
that was again one of the things i loved about the fuji x-e1. it was a thoughtful slow process when using it and for me persoanlly thats how landscapes should be shot. and i do like to just stop and take in the scene, take some time and enjoy what im shooting and shooting manually slows that whole process down.
 
alfbranch said:
It is not advisable or necessary to f16 all the time. On my camera lens combo f16 should be avoided.

I don't, that's why I bracket ;)


How will you set the lens to the hyperfocal distance?
Click to expand...



Sent from my iPad using Talk Photography Forums
 
I use a Sony A57 with a Tamron 17-50 F2.8, am considering a real wide angle...
 
Take two shots, one focussed on the foreground the other focussed distant, and blend them together for maximum depth of field
 
Brian G said:
Take two shots, one focussed on the foreground the other focussed distant, and blend them together for maximum depth of field
Click to expand...

That is not depth of field. That's focus stacking which is completely different. Focus stacking is Photoshop post editing. If your going to do this then do fore, middle and rear ground and in between. Whilst this is a good technique it's better to get it right in camera in the first place, see my original post.
 
only reason you may need to merge 2 shots together is if you have very high and low contrasts and need to expand the tonal range ala HDR ( not the psuedo HDR created by plugins and software but the true meaning of High dynamic range.
this has little to do with focus points though and all to do with exposure and certainly not a technique you would use for front to back DOF. really its a case of practice and learning to find the maximum point for the full focus range through learning the hyperfocal distance.
focus stacking is another thing entirely , normally asscoaiated when shooting the very opposite ( ie a very shallow DOF) typically when shooting macro such as bugs and insects and want the entire image in focus but due to such a shallow DOF that can be as little as a mm or so requires multiple shots which are taken by micro adjusting the focus point without actually adjusting the lens position then stacking / merging the photos to creat a single image that has front to back focus.
ive done this a couple of times on test shots using as many as 30 images on a still subject ( mushrooms of all things ) which were shot using a 70-300 and extension tubes which only gave me around 2mm focus so to get the entire mushroom focused stacked the images. doing it on bugs is a nightmare as they tend not to stay still for long!
 
jakeblu said:
Struggling to see the point in manual focus for landscapes, ok I can understand maybe for low light, macro or even portraiture but landscapes? When you have the ability to move the focus point to one of many areas dependant on where you want to focus manual focus seems a bit redundant.
Click to expand...
Manual focus, for a static subject, is direct and quick and saves farting about with digital controls. It has the satisfying and efficient real-world quality of using the eye and hand and avoiding that intervening layer of the digital interface.
 
Been doing that's since 1980, before the advent of DSLRs but technology had moved on. AF focusing had never been an issue. Drop an AF point in a subject of interest in the foreground and use a small aperture to to maximise the depth of field. If you want the background to blur open the aperture up. Simples :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top