24

shutter speed 0.5 seconds This is likely to be a bit of your problem. The shutter causes vibration of the camera. So, too, does your hand pushing the release button. At faster speeds, this vibration does not affect the shot. Likewise, at very slow speeds (a few seconds +). But there’s a sweet spot somewhere between a second or two and ~1/30 where that ...


20

There's only one distance that is in sharpest focus. Everything in front of or behind that distance is blurry. The further we move away from the focus distance, the blurrier things get. The questions become: "How blurry is it? Is that within our acceptable limit? How far from the focus distance do things become unacceptably blurry?" What we call depth of ...


7

Imagine a wall some distance from your camera ­— a flat wall with no depth, and you're facing it straight on. Lens focus is like that: everything in that exact plane is in focus. (This is a simplification. For real-world lenses this isn't perfectly flat. In reality, a number of unavoidable optical aberrations keep perfection at bay, but for a basic ...


7

The Focus Distance Upper and Focus Distance Lower tags are in the Canon-proprietary "maker notes" and aren't part of standard EXIF, so documentation is scarce. However, it appears that these (together) represent the distance at which the lens's focus is set. That is, it's somewhere between the two bounds. Why Canon does it this way rather than providing a ...


7

It appears your aperture is still too open for the subject to be entirely in focus, at the current distance between the lens and the subject. You could tackle this issue in three ways: 1) Close down the aperture An open aperture will result in a narrow depth-of-field (DOF). The DOF entails the area in the image that is in acceptably sharp focus. Seeing ...


6

Based on the article posted here, it seems that this lens sharpness does not increase with aperture size reduction: https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/e-16-50mm-f3.5-5.6-pz-oss-selp1650/review/ Sharpness At 16mm and f/3.5, the Sony E 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 PZ OSS is fairly soft in the corners and across much of the frame, but the very center of ...


5

To get the entirety of a subject in focus, you need to increase Depth of Field. Increase F-number (decrease aperture). I would not use an aperture smaller than F8-11 because of diffraction. Increase distance. Decrease focal length. Another technique you can consider using is tilt-shift. This allows you to align the focal plane with your subject. Since you ...


5

The Fuji X-T3 and X-Pro2 (among others) have a focus assist feature called Focus Peak Highlight that shows what is in focus by outlining items in both the EVF and rear LCD that are in focus. This display changes with lens aperture (roughly) indicating near and far range of sharp focus. I believe other EVF camera systems have equivalent features.


5

At best it could only be a very rough estimate. Why is this so? Because ultimately depth of field depends on factors that the camera does not know and which may be, and often are, changed after the image is captured. Among them: Display size. The more an image is enlarged from the size of the image projected by the lens onto the camera's sensor, the more ...


5

... why don't we just have big pixels (and thus large sensor surfaces, because we keep the number of pixels fixed)? There are camera models with lower resolution sensors, but the reason they are made is for increased light sensitivity, not DOF. If you want deeper depth of field, consider small sensors, wide-angle lenses, and small apertures. This ...


4

Can someone either confirm it exists or tell me how? Page 61 of the EOS 100 user manual explains how to set the various custom functions. There's a list of 7 different settings you can turn on, and (as @Gerhardh pointed out in a comment) custom function 5 lets you use the AE Lock button for depth of field preview. Here's the short version: Set the command ...


4

Since the question edit, I'm tempted to link across to my previous answer on the 'medieval look' which does cover a lot of the same ground in a reasonably simplistic way. How can I create this 'medieval look' using an entry-level camera like the Nikon D3300? Matt Grum's answer on How can I get dramatic shallow DOF with a kit lens? covers it very well ...


4

The formulas don't account for factors that cause real lenses to deviate from the ideal. Formulas are from Wikipedia. Depth of Field – DOF stays the same because distance to subject (u) is in the numerator and focal length (f) is in the denominator. They are both squared, so changes that are proportional to each other cancel out. Here is the standard ...


4

Increasing the aperture will increase the effect of diffraction. To make photos with big DoF you need to apply technique as focus stacking. Focus stacking (also known as focal plane merging and z-stacking or focus blending) is a digital image processing technique which combines multiple images taken at different focus distances to give a resulting ...


4

You could try applying a post-processing filter to make it sharper. Some manufactures automatically apply a post-sharpening filter (namely Nikon) to squeeze out even more sharpness. Here is what your image looks like after applying the Shake Reduction filter in Photoshop: You could go crazy and add a lot of sharpening, but then the image starts to get a bit ...


3

As @mattdm found out, the FocusDistanceLower and FocusDistanceUpper, whatever they exactly mean, together denote the approximate focus distance. ExifTool then calculates depth of field based on these. I took a look at the ExifTool source code, and the DoF calculation desires: Desire => { 3 => 'FocusDistance', # focus distance in metres (0 is ...


3

you can also use focus stack, take one picture with your subject and one of background and merge them in software


3

If background blur really is all you're after, the 'old' image was a red herring, and any modern lens can achieve it as long as aperture, focal length, and distance are suitable. In your 'new' image, the subjects are fairly far from the camera, whereas in the movie captures, the subject is close. Consider getting a nifty fifty (50/1.8). Any modern lens with ...


3

There's only ever one perfectly-in-focus theoretical distance from the camera. But, because perfect isn't necessary to actually appear in focus, there's a broad range — depth of field, as you correctly define it — which is "good enough" for the viewer in a given situation. Because this is perceptual, the exact limits are fuzzy — you can read more about it ...


3

tl;dr - in theory, sure. In practice, I've found that it isn't really needed. In theory, yes, one could use the hyperfocal distance (HFD from here on out) to ensure that all subjects are reasonably sharp. That being said, an important consideration for "sharpness" and HFD is the print size and viewing distance of that print. If you figured out some great ...


3

Here is the standard Depth of Field formula for reference: DOF = 2 u2 N C / f2 N = aperture F-number C = circle of confusion u = distance to subject f = focal length When aperture and subject size within the frame are constant, DOF will not change because changes to focal length (f) and distance (u) will be proportional to each other and ...


2

Depth of Field (DOF), background blur, and bokeh are related, but different concepts. There is also subject-background isolation/separation. Depth of field is based on focal length, aperture, distance, and a predefined acceptable sharpness level. It is concerned with what parts of the image are expected to be sharp, not what parts of the image will be ...


2

Elaborating on Aganju's comment: An object of size S at the far end (D+E) appears smaller on the film plane than an equal-sized one at the near end (D-E). So the film-plane blur-blob of the far object is smaller than the near-object one, making it appear sharper, and meaning that (based on the film-plane blob size) you can go further out until you reach ...


2

Magnification and Aperture control depth of field. For the same magnification and aperture, the depth of field will be the same whether or not you use a dedicated Macro lens or a telephoto with extension tubes.


2

Potentially this could be from using a large format camera. Although apparent depth of field comes from different factors (size of final image, aperture used, distance to subject) one important one is the focal length of the lens. Longer focal length lenses tend to have narrower apparent depth of field than shorter focal length lenses. Large format cameras (...


2

Yes, it is. Narrow down your aperture. Bump up your exposure time to compensate. Alternatively, you could bump up the ISO level but that would create more noise. Stand far enough from the person you're photographing. If needed, use image stabilization or a tripod to compensate for the long exposure time. If needed and you're taking the picture in dark ...


2

I normally don't recommend buying things, but, here, there are two bits of equipment which will make a world of difference. First, get a wider-angle lens — 50mm or 35mm or somewhere in that range. The 105mm portrait range is great for isolating individuals, but not so great for "lots of kids", both just because the framing is tight and because the framing ...


2

Only one distance can be "in focus." Everything else is blurrier than the in focus distance to one degree or another. Just how blurry it is is determined by several factors. Among them: Distance, relative to the camera, from the in focus position. The closer something is to the focus distance, the sharper it will be. The further something is, the less in ...


2

Geometric optics teach us to expresses that a lens is only able to form a sharp image of an object at a given focus point. Objects nearer or further as to distance will image as unsharp. However, as a matter of common observation, objects before and behind the distance focused on likely appear sharply focused. The reason is, there exists a span before and ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible