photoman43

In the old days with manual focus lenses and then with some AF lenses, you almost had the same thing. It is called a hyperfocal distance scale printed right on the lens barrel. I used this technique all the time in the 1950s to "focus" manual focus lenses. Today, you may need to download a hyperfocal distance chart.

https://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-find-and-use-hyperfocal-distance-for-sharp-backgrounds/

https://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

BebuLamar

How accurate can you focus to 10 feet using the scale on the bellow? This is the part that all cameras I know is very inaccurate.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

Yes, I read that when I used a Speed Graphic (amateur) 50 years ago--they were antiques then. I still have one though, and like it. I play with it using Canon as a back, but never got the Hasselblad to work that way--too complicated and expensive.

Note that a 4x5 inch negative is not so much enlarged for prints, so the critical sharpness required for tiny digital sensors (even full frame, and even medium format) was far less. A photo in a newspaper was rarely bigger than 4x5 itself (often smaller), and even so, coarsely printed.

If all we made were 4x6 prints for the album, millions of sins would never be found out. For ages, the old Brownies were medium format negatives that were just contact printed. Simple lenses were just fine. Holding the camera still was the biggest challenge, except under full sun or flashbulbs.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Auto is limited to the algorithms in its little brain. Get beyond the range for which it is designed and the results are less than ideal. In those cases manual override is necessary

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

In my video work of 40 years, I have only ever used AF a couple of times when the camera was on a gimbal. AF is almost never used in video work. My point is that it seems rather absurd to not have a MF option on a lens that fits cameras that are often used for video shooting

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

At one time Canon cameras had "A-DEP" mode, which was automatic depth of field control. If I recall correctly, it was mostly just found on the more advanced film cameras. I never found it very useful, because it was overly automated and relied upon some Canon engineer's determination of what circle of confusion was acceptable in an image.

Mostly I just estimated hyperfocal focus distances. The nearest in-focus would be about 1/3 the distance to the point of focus, while the farthest would be approx. 2/3 the distance beyond the point of focus. (This is just a rough estimate but usually close enough, it is actually more like a 40/60 split or 45/55.)

With digital it is unnecessary. You can preview the image or a portion of it greatly enlarged when depth of field is critical. Or you can just take the shot and check it. Focus bracketing and focus stacking also make it less important.

If wanting to use precise hyperfocal technique, install an app on your phone!

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I have used both cine lenses and normal lenses for my documentary work. Personally, for what I do, normal lenses are fine if they have decent focus collars. Best are mechanical focus and a mechanical aperture, declicked. Electronic focus is OK, but not as easy to focus precisely while filming as a mechanical focus system. I work as an ISO cam, by myself. For those in studio situations, cine lenses are really a must so that you can have an assistant pulling focus. But I am more a documentarist and someone who shoots reportage, so for me a fairly quick focus throw is best.

Without a mechanical iris, which almost no lenses have these days, manual control of exposure is a problem, because electronic diaphragms are not stepless, so never smooth. To get around this, folks are now using VND filters, which can vary the amount of light hitting the sensor smoothly. Another great advantage of VNDs is that DOF does not change, as it does when opening or closing an iris. You can set the aperture for the DOF you want and then use the filter to set exposure.

The problem with AF and AE is that you have no control. The camera does what it wants, and if it misses focus or focuses where you don't want it to, a whole shot can be lost. In reportage, such shots can never be repeated. So it is very important to have full control of the camera always. Also when doing a rack focus, or moving focus from one subject in frame to another, you can do it when you want and at the speed you want. You might also choose to focus somewhere other than your main subject. Having such control means the difference between ho-hum and something special.

With auto exposure it is the same. Especially in video, you do not want the exposure changing during a scene, such as when you move from an area of bright sky to an area of darker foreground, and if you do need to vary exposure during a scene, you want to have control when it starts and at what speed and to what degree. And if suddenly a bright light enters frame, or you pan into a bright light, you don't want the aperture closing down and darkening your subject. With video, all changes must be smooth and controlled during the shot, unlike photos, where you are only capturing a frame for an instant, and it doesn't matter what happens before or after.

Someone said that video professionals certainly use professional video cameras. Actually no. Until a few years ago, there were no full frame video cameras. It was the Canon 5D that first allowed videographers to work in full frame, and with a DSLR, no less. It's true that there were certain things that are not ideal with DSLRs, and there are things not ideal today with mirrorless hybrids (especially audio control), but the newest generation of mirrorless hybrids will shoot in full professional quality (meaning 8K, high frame rate 4K, and in 10 bits) at a fraction of the cost of an Arri or a RED. They are also ergonomically ideal, on a rig, for solo shooting on shoulder, and IS has made such shooting much easier and better than ever before. There is still a place for high end and prosumer video cams, but cameras like the Sony A7S3 and A1, and the Nikon Z9, have brought the possibility of fully professional quality video to everyone. For Canon to release a lens that does not even have the possibility of manual focus seems strange, to say the least, especially since Canon EF mount is one of the most common mounts for today's video market.

User ID

Ten feet is ten feet. The scale on a Graphic is really accurate. The only possible vaguery is the users ability estimating ten feet.

Verrrrry many users of Graphics have nearly perfect distance estimating skill.

Part of their magic is not to look at a distance and assign it a footage to the "nearest foot". They do NOT do that. They become exceedingly accurate at RECOGNIZING (not estimating) a few particular distances like 6ft, 10ft, 15ft, and 25ft. They set the scale at one of those few settings and then they will position themselves at that very well practiced distance.

BebuLamar

How accurate? for 10 feet can you set the distance with 1 inch using the scale?

User ID

To the nearest 5 nanometers.

BebuLamar

Ok

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

Ah, now I understand you.

The lens in question can be manually focused, but you select it in the camera menu, not a switch on the lens.
For most photographers, I assume focus is hardly critical in a 17mm full frame camera, as most planes will be quite sharp, even if approximate. That is a great advantage of the lens for a start, for everyday use.

I accept what you say about video--not my thing--but I assume when you are shooting video it is no problem to set that in the camera controls? If you are frequently switching back and forth, I can see how a switch on the lens is better. If I ever try video, I can set it in the camera--but surely when everything looks sharp in the frame, it is hard to focus manually with any degree of precision? (I can set the view screen to 10x magnification, if that helps.)

On the other hand, if there is a switch that can be set wrong, I am prone to have it set wrong. That is a reason not to have it if you can leave it out. My one and only wedding was my brother's, and no one else took pictures, and I had the camera set on the wrong shutter speed for flash synchronization with that model (not my usual camera)--no pictures. (It was a surprise wedding--we thought it was a birthday party--so I was trying out a different camera and only had Kodachrome 25 in dim evening light outside.) I had no desire to go into that field, but as it happened nobody ever asked me to.

I have some great Canon L lenses with a close-up switch for macro, so that is something else to go wrong, even if in theory it is a great feature.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Unless you have an Olympus with Starry Night Focus.

User ID

Clearly not a big fan of cluttering a lens with switches !

Im for less clutter myself. I have a very nice two-switch lens on which one of the switches no longer moves. Its probably stuck (at my preferred setting) simply from lack of use. No hey problemo.

druthven

I personally think this is a brilliant idea. Very few people carry around a hyperfocal distance chart so the photographer is forced to guesstimate a setting. It might not be a commonly used setting but could be quite valuable for landscape photography.