FOV calculaton (Page 2): :sm02: :sm24:...

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

BebuLamar wrote:

It's rather simple math yet it's not all that useful to know either.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

chikid68 wrote:

But it is a lot easier to estimate that you are five feet away from the subject than to have to factor in that at f 1.8 the depth of field at five feet is going to be about three inches actually in focus.
The footage is a lot more forgiving as for guessing.
Especially since the calculator gives the range of in focus.
It's been working for me for the last few years without precise figures.
But you stick to what works for you and I'll be busy capturing images instead.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Longshadow wrote:

I just look through the viewfinder and see if I need to change the lens focal length or backup.
No way I'm going to worry about how many degrees...

I do the same, could care less about a calculation for what I photograph.

chikid68 Loc: Tennesse USA

Architect1776 wrote:

I do the same, could care less about a calculation for what I photograph.

That's how I aquire my field of view as well.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

After reading this I would like to go back to debating filters or no filters to protect len. 😀

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Sidwalkastronomy wrote:

After reading this I would like to go back to debating filters or no filters to protect len. 😀

Start another thread.

User ID

BebuLamar wrote:

You open a new can of worms. When you calculate the depth of field you need to enter the focus distance. How do you find out what the focus distance is? It's not an easy task.

Easy. Just breath normally and play a slow blues in your head.

User ID

I look at the intended scene width and the visually approximate how many “scene widths” are in the distance to that scene. Then I know what lens to use.

The lens whose FL equals the format width is coNsidered the “1x” lens. (That would be a 35mm lens for FF.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If the intended scene looks like it’s about 10 “scene widths” distant, I need a 10x lens (about 350mm). If the distance look like about half the scene width, I need a 1/2X lens (about 17mm).

I do these visualizations before I even open my gear bag. If you carry three lenses, you get to know them not by their FLs but by their “scene width distances”. Once you know your lenses by their new names, there is never any math involved in choosing a lens from your gear bag.

My fave compact FF kit approximates 1/2X, 1x, and 2x. (I sometimes include a 6x if I really expect to use it.)

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

User ID wrote:

I look at the intended scene width and the visuall... (show quote)

Once one learns their lenses for the camera at hand.....

profbowman Loc: Harrisonburg, VA, USA

chikid68 wrote:

But it is a lot easier to estimate that you are five feet away from the subject than to have to factor in that at f 1.8 the depth of field at five feet is going to be about three inches actually in focus.
The footage is a lot more forgiving as for guessing.
Especially since the calculator gives the range of in focus.
It's been working for me for the last few years without precise figures.
But you stick to what works for you and I'll be busy capturing images instead.

The problem of depth of field is that it is not a direct physical optics quantity, that is, it is not defined completely by the characteristics of the lens but also involves the film grain size or the resolution and size of the sensor. And there is a lot of subjectivity in evaluating a given printed (or otherwise displayed) photograph and how much of its depth is in focus.

So, for me, I can live with me learning to know my lenses and cameras and light conditions (leading to a choice of film speed, f-stop, and shutter speed). Experience seems, to me, to be the key rather than a nebulous calculation. --Richard

P.S. I know that the Edmund Scientific Imaging tutorial series has an article, "Depth of Field and Depth of Focus," appears to have a lot of quantitative data supporting its definitions, but they derive from some subjective definitions and definitions that are not helpful to use in a calculation in the field or studio.

chikid68 Loc: Tennesse USA

profbowman wrote:

The problem of depth of field is that it is not a ... (show quote)

While it is true that it's all subjective it's still a good jumping off point when you don't have a lot of time for trial and error.
While it is true that we are more familiar with our lenses behavior this tool does have it's use for me at least.

profbowman Loc: Harrisonburg, VA, USA

chikid68 wrote:

While it is true that it's all subjective it's still a good jumping off point when you don't have a lot of time for trial and error.
While it is true that we are more familiar with our lenses behavior this tool does have it's use for me at least.

I had meant to ask you for the name of the calculator you use for a depth of field estimate. Is it on your camera or a smartphone or tablet? Thanks. ---Richard

chikid68 Loc: Tennesse USA

profbowman wrote:

I had meant to ask you for the name of the calculator you use for a depth of field estimate. Is it on your camera or a smartphone or tablet? Thanks. ---Richard

It's called depth of field calculator pro and it's on my Android phone but uses manual information input for most camera sensor sizes.

fantom Loc: Colorado

reverendray wrote:

https://scantips.com/lights/fieldofviewmath.html

Thanks for posting.
Introducing humor onto to this forum is always good.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

fantom wrote:

Thanks for posting.
Introducing humor onto to this forum is always good.