focus bracketing

On Mar 15, 10:49 am, Toni Nikkanen wrote:
> Why not general bracketing, while we're at it? I'm at least half-serious.
> Exposure bracketing, of course. Aperture bracketing, ISO bracketing,
> focus bracketing, heck, even zoom bracketing... and a combination
> of all these..

Yes, Yes. And permanently mount the camera on a tripod so it stays in
place while it does all of that (and you forgot maybe having it pan
back and forth a bit). Memory is cheap and camera are quick, so it
could take every possible permatation while sitting there. 4
variables with 4 shots each would only be 256 images. That's just a
couple of minutes. What's the big deal. Then everyone could take
great images all of the time without knowing anything. Sounds
ideal !!!
 >> Stay informed about: focus bracketing 

"Doug McDonald" wrote in message

> There is lots of talk aboyt exposure bracketing, which I agree is (almost)
> useless with RAW.
>
> However, with current autofocus cameras, what would be extremely useful
> would be focus bracketing. But apparently this does not exist.
>
> Why? Or does it for some cameras?

Available on the Canon S3 IS - in Manual Focus mode only I believe.
 >> Stay informed about: focus bracketing 

"Jack Torrence" <room217[at]overlook.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message

> "Doug McDonald" wrote in message
>
>> There is lots of talk aboyt exposure bracketing, which I agree is
>> (almost)
>> useless with RAW.
>>
>> However, with current autofocus cameras, what would be extremely useful
>> would be focus bracketing. But apparently this does not exist.
>>
>> Why? Or does it for some cameras?
>
> Available on the Canon S3 IS - in Manual Focus mode only I believe.
>
Only a P&S but Casio EX-P600 has 'focus bracketing'. No RAW Mode though,
only TIFF.
 >> Stay informed about: focus bracketing 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: focus bracketing 

Why not general bracketing, while we're at it? I'm at least half-serious.
Exposure bracketing, of course. Aperture bracketing, ISO bracketing,
focus bracketing, heck, even zoom bracketing... and a combination
of all these..
 >> Stay informed about: focus bracketing 

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:18:14 -0600, Doug McDonald
wrote:

>There is lots of talk aboyt exposure bracketing, which I agree is (almost)
>useless with RAW.
>
>However, with current autofocus cameras, what would be extremely useful
>would be focus bracketing. But apparently this does not exist.
>
>Why? Or does it for some cameras?

Samsung L85 has it.

--
regards
Vidar Grønvold
 >> Stay informed about: focus bracketing 

Doug McDonald wrote:

> There is lots of talk aboyt exposure bracketing, which I agree is (almost)
> useless with RAW.
>
> However, with current autofocus cameras, what would be extremely useful
> would be focus bracketing. But apparently this does not exist.
>
> Why? Or does it for some cameras?

<http://www.graficaobscura.com/depth/index.html>
 >> Stay informed about: focus bracketing 

Ed wrote:
> Maybe I am overlooking the point, but why would you need focus bracketing,
> you focus on what you are shooting?

If I focus on a static image, with a camera with a really reliable
focusing system, then of course I get focus right.

But most digital cameras do not have reliable manual focus
systems: the screen is not good enough, and there is no
split image rangefinder patch in the center. In this case, of
course, one can manually bracket focus.

But what I am really worrying about is the autofocus system.
At least with my 30D, it is not reliably perfect, especially with
flat subjects. It's adequate for people pictures, but it simply
is not perfect wide open at infinity. Its very close, but not perfect.
Its perfect at f/16, not f/4. This is what I really want
the bracket for.


And then there are action pics. For that I suppose follow focus
mode and burst shots are a form of focus bracket. I have not
yet tried such things, I should.

Doug McDonald
 >> Stay informed about: focus bracketing 

"Ed Ruf >" wrote
in message
> On 15 Mar 2007 09:48:46 -0700, in rec.photo.digital "Pat"
> wrote:
>
>>>Yes, Yes. And permanently mount the camera on a tripod so it stays in
>>place while it does all of that (and you forgot maybe having it pan
>>back and forth a bit). Memory is cheap and camera are quick, so it
>>could take every possible permatation while sitting there. 4
>>variables with 4 shots each would only be 256 images. That's just a
>>couple of minutes. What's the big deal. Then everyone could take
>>great images all of the time without knowing anything. Sounds
>>ideal !!!
>
> And you would then also have folks posting EVERY image on-line as
> well.

Hey they do that already I think.
 >> Stay informed about: focus bracketing 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: focus bracketing 

Ed wrote:
> Maybe I am overlooking the point, but why would you need focus bracketing,
> you focus on what you are shooting?

Because you might have focused on the nose, and the eyes are more than
an inch further back! And depending on the timing, you may not be able
to focus precisely on the eyes each and ever time. And the system isn't
really accurate to 1/32nd of an inch anyway.

Aperture bracketing wouldn't help, I don't have the light to stop down
any. ISO bracketing wouldn't help, I'm already at max usable ISO.
 >> Stay informed about: focus bracketing 

Doug McDonald wrote:

> However, with current autofocus cameras, what would be extremely useful
> would be focus bracketing. But apparently this does not exist.
>
> Why? Or does it for some cameras?

Of course: Olympus E-500 and E-330.

The feature is called *MF bracketing* (MF BKT):
<http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/oly-e/e500-foc-bkt.html>

Squirrel
 >> Stay informed about: focus bracketing 

Maybe I am overlooking the point, but why would you need focus bracketing,
you focus on what you are shooting?

Ahhh, I think I know what you are thinking. If you are shooting with a big
aperture, it is not always practical to use the DOF preview button, or
calculate DOF, to ensure that all the subjects you want in focus, are in
focus, as this takes time that you don't always have.

So to put it into real life terms, are you saying that you are shooting a
group shot of people, some close, some further away, with a big aperture in
low light conditions, without flash. You need to shoot fast because they
will get bored/move otherwise. So, you want to ensure that they are all in
focus, but you don't have the time to play with the settings to ensure they
are all in focus.

So you crank up the ISO to get decent shutter speeds, and then bracket for
depth of field. If this is the case, then I think it is not focus
bracketing you want, but aperture bracketing you need. If so, that is a
fantastic idea!

There must be many people that try to shoot quickly in low light situations,
and shoot wide open at maybe F1.2, then realise that the DOF is so narrow
that they shot is a binner. Aperture bracketing would be a great feature,
although the user would still need to know what they are doing and
understand shutter speeds. ISO bracketing would also be useful.



BTW, RAW has it's capabilities. Exposure is still very important.


"Doug McDonald" wrote in message

> There is lots of talk aboyt exposure bracketing, which I agree is (almost)
> useless with RAW.
>
> However, with current autofocus cameras, what would be extremely useful
> would be focus bracketing. But apparently this does not exist.
>
> Why? Or does it for some cameras?
>
> Doug McDonald
 >> Stay informed about: focus bracketing