Does image quality of the lens affect “focus and recompose” technique?Which is better - autofocus and...
Architecture of networked game engine
Calculating the partial sum of a expl3 sequence
Do I recheck baggage at stopovers MCI-SEA-ICN-SGN? Delta and Korean Air
In the Marvel universe, can a human have a baby with any non-human?
How to get cool night-vision without lame drawbacks?
Singing along to guitar chords (harmony)
Inverse-quotes-quine
What level of infinity is referred to when talking about recurring digits?
Why does the numerical solution of an ODE move away from an unstable equilibrium?
Does the UK have a written constitution?
Is my Rep in Stack-Exchange Form?
Why isn’t the tax system continuous rather than bracketed?
Layout of complex table
Links to webpages in books
C-152 carb heat on before landing in hot weather?
How to determine what is the correct level of detail when modelling?
Find smallest index that is identical to the value in an array
Content builder HTTPS
"It will become the talk of Paris" - translation into French
When is it ok to add filler to a story?
How to positively portray high and mighty characters?
Plata or Dinero
How risky is real estate?
How should I behave to assure my friends that I am not after their money?
Does image quality of the lens affect “focus and recompose” technique?
Which is better - autofocus and recompose vs. manual focus?Why are my photos taken at f/11 less sharp than those taken at a wider aperture?What techniques are there to get focus and/or lock exposure other than center, half-press, and recompose?Does lens focus affect the appearance of sensor dust?How much does a drop in temperature affect focus?Diagnose a damaged lens from focus test resultsHow does aperture affect focus area?Nikon focus and recompose: identifying behaviour on different modelsHow to take sharper photosDoes processor affect auto-focus precision?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
As I understand it, 'focus and recompose' is often used to ensure the subject is in focus and at the same time composition is right. It has been estimated that some lenses are best in terms of image quality at the center and soft/blurry towards the edges at wide open apertures. When I am using these lenses if I focus and recompose a portrait at a lens's lowest aperture (not necessarily the sweetest aperture value) and put the person to one side will the portrait be sharper or softer in this case?
focus
edited 9 hours ago
mattdm
125k40 gold badges368 silver badges667 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
Anil JosephAnil Joseph
412 bronze badges
add a comment |
As I understand it, 'focus and recompose' is often used to ensure the subject is in focus and at the same time composition is right. It has been estimated that some lenses are best in terms of image quality at the center and soft/blurry towards the edges at wide open apertures. When I am using these lenses if I focus and recompose a portrait at a lens's lowest aperture (not necessarily the sweetest aperture value) and put the person to one side will the portrait be sharper or softer in this case?
focus
edited 9 hours ago
mattdm
125k40 gold badges368 silver badges667 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
Anil JosephAnil Joseph
412 bronze badges
add a comment |
As I understand it, 'focus and recompose' is often used to ensure the subject is in focus and at the same time composition is right. It has been estimated that some lenses are best in terms of image quality at the center and soft/blurry towards the edges at wide open apertures. When I am using these lenses if I focus and recompose a portrait at a lens's lowest aperture (not necessarily the sweetest aperture value) and put the person to one side will the portrait be sharper or softer in this case?
focus
edited 9 hours ago
mattdm
125k40 gold badges368 silver badges667 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
Anil JosephAnil Joseph
412 bronze badges
As I understand it, 'focus and recompose' is often used to ensure the subject is in focus and at the same time composition is right. It has been estimated that some lenses are best in terms of image quality at the center and soft/blurry towards the edges at wide open apertures. When I am using these lenses if I focus and recompose a portrait at a lens's lowest aperture (not necessarily the sweetest aperture value) and put the person to one side will the portrait be sharper or softer in this case?
focus
focus
edited 9 hours ago
mattdm
125k40 gold badges368 silver badges667 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
Anil JosephAnil Joseph
412 bronze badges
edited 9 hours ago
mattdm
125k40 gold badges368 silver badges667 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
Anil JosephAnil Joseph
412 bronze badges
edited 9 hours ago
mattdm
125k40 gold badges368 silver badges667 bronze badges
edited 9 hours ago
mattdm
125k40 gold badges368 silver badges667 bronze badges
edited 9 hours ago
mattdm
125k40 gold badges368 silver badges667 bronze badges
125k40 gold badges368 silver badges667 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
Anil JosephAnil Joseph
412 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
Anil JosephAnil Joseph
412 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
Anil JosephAnil Joseph
412 bronze badges
412 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Depends at least on the depth of field.
For example, if you have 85mm f/1.2 on a full frame camera, and do a head&shoulders portrait (distance: 1.65 meters), the depth of field is 12.3mm in front of the focal plane and 12.5mm in rear of the focal plane.
What are the chances that the camera moves so that the subject is no longer close enough to the focal plane? I'd say pretty high, even though I don't have a full frame camera or a 85mm f/1.2 lens.
Use the right tool for the job. Your camera probably has several autofocus points, even though in some cases the center one is the most accurate.
On the other hand, 135mm f/2.8 head&shoulders portrait on a Canon 1.6x crop sensor body (distance: 4.26 meters) has 48mm DoF in front of the focal plane and 49.2mm DoF in rear of it. I'd say in this case the danger of subject no longer being in perfect focus is less significant.
answered 9 hours ago
juhistjuhist
1,3331 silver badge18 bronze badges
1
Extend the metaphor - try extreme macro photography at 30mm... if a car goes past outside your focus can be off ...vs... pick one mountain at 5km, recompose to include the one next to it ;)
– Tetsujin
8 hours ago
@Tetsujib you’re reminding me of when I shot the moon at 400mm on a junk tripod. Yea that was motion blur over focus issues...but those damn cars ;-)
– Hueco
8 hours ago
add a comment |
The problem with lenses wide open (gross generalization coming) is softness moving toward the corners - and this will be there no matter the exactness of your focus.
The problem with focus and recompose is that it’s very easy to minutely change the distance to which you are focusing...not that you’re actually refocusing but that by changing the camera angle, the distance to your new subject is minutely different.
The problems compound when using a lens at a large aperture where DoF is mere millimeters anyway (now your shot is OOF from sloppy recompose technique) and compounded by putting the subject in a soft portion of the lens.
All that being said, I’ve missed more shots to OOF than lens sharpness. Of the two, that’s the more critical issue in my book.
answered 9 hours ago
HuecoHueco
14.1k3 gold badges29 silver badges64 bronze badges
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "61"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f109089%2fdoes-image-quality-of-the-lens-affect-focus-and-recompose-technique%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Depends at least on the depth of field.
For example, if you have 85mm f/1.2 on a full frame camera, and do a head&shoulders portrait (distance: 1.65 meters), the depth of field is 12.3mm in front of the focal plane and 12.5mm in rear of the focal plane.
What are the chances that the camera moves so that the subject is no longer close enough to the focal plane? I'd say pretty high, even though I don't have a full frame camera or a 85mm f/1.2 lens.
Use the right tool for the job. Your camera probably has several autofocus points, even though in some cases the center one is the most accurate.
On the other hand, 135mm f/2.8 head&shoulders portrait on a Canon 1.6x crop sensor body (distance: 4.26 meters) has 48mm DoF in front of the focal plane and 49.2mm DoF in rear of it. I'd say in this case the danger of subject no longer being in perfect focus is less significant.
answered 9 hours ago
juhistjuhist
1,3331 silver badge18 bronze badges
1
Extend the metaphor - try extreme macro photography at 30mm... if a car goes past outside your focus can be off ...vs... pick one mountain at 5km, recompose to include the one next to it ;)
– Tetsujin
8 hours ago
@Tetsujib you’re reminding me of when I shot the moon at 400mm on a junk tripod. Yea that was motion blur over focus issues...but those damn cars ;-)
– Hueco
8 hours ago
add a comment |
Depends at least on the depth of field.
For example, if you have 85mm f/1.2 on a full frame camera, and do a head&shoulders portrait (distance: 1.65 meters), the depth of field is 12.3mm in front of the focal plane and 12.5mm in rear of the focal plane.
What are the chances that the camera moves so that the subject is no longer close enough to the focal plane? I'd say pretty high, even though I don't have a full frame camera or a 85mm f/1.2 lens.
Use the right tool for the job. Your camera probably has several autofocus points, even though in some cases the center one is the most accurate.
On the other hand, 135mm f/2.8 head&shoulders portrait on a Canon 1.6x crop sensor body (distance: 4.26 meters) has 48mm DoF in front of the focal plane and 49.2mm DoF in rear of it. I'd say in this case the danger of subject no longer being in perfect focus is less significant.
answered 9 hours ago
juhistjuhist
1,3331 silver badge18 bronze badges
1
Extend the metaphor - try extreme macro photography at 30mm... if a car goes past outside your focus can be off ...vs... pick one mountain at 5km, recompose to include the one next to it ;)
– Tetsujin
8 hours ago
@Tetsujib you’re reminding me of when I shot the moon at 400mm on a junk tripod. Yea that was motion blur over focus issues...but those damn cars ;-)
– Hueco
8 hours ago
add a comment |
Depends at least on the depth of field.
For example, if you have 85mm f/1.2 on a full frame camera, and do a head&shoulders portrait (distance: 1.65 meters), the depth of field is 12.3mm in front of the focal plane and 12.5mm in rear of the focal plane.
What are the chances that the camera moves so that the subject is no longer close enough to the focal plane? I'd say pretty high, even though I don't have a full frame camera or a 85mm f/1.2 lens.
Use the right tool for the job. Your camera probably has several autofocus points, even though in some cases the center one is the most accurate.
On the other hand, 135mm f/2.8 head&shoulders portrait on a Canon 1.6x crop sensor body (distance: 4.26 meters) has 48mm DoF in front of the focal plane and 49.2mm DoF in rear of it. I'd say in this case the danger of subject no longer being in perfect focus is less significant.
answered 9 hours ago
juhistjuhist
1,3331 silver badge18 bronze badges
Depends at least on the depth of field.
For example, if you have 85mm f/1.2 on a full frame camera, and do a head&shoulders portrait (distance: 1.65 meters), the depth of field is 12.3mm in front of the focal plane and 12.5mm in rear of the focal plane.
What are the chances that the camera moves so that the subject is no longer close enough to the focal plane? I'd say pretty high, even though I don't have a full frame camera or a 85mm f/1.2 lens.
Use the right tool for the job. Your camera probably has several autofocus points, even though in some cases the center one is the most accurate.
On the other hand, 135mm f/2.8 head&shoulders portrait on a Canon 1.6x crop sensor body (distance: 4.26 meters) has 48mm DoF in front of the focal plane and 49.2mm DoF in rear of it. I'd say in this case the danger of subject no longer being in perfect focus is less significant.
answered 9 hours ago
juhistjuhist
1,3331 silver badge18 bronze badges
answered 9 hours ago
juhistjuhist
1,3331 silver badge18 bronze badges
answered 9 hours ago
juhistjuhist
1,3331 silver badge18 bronze badges
answered 9 hours ago
juhistjuhist
1,3331 silver badge18 bronze badges
1,3331 silver badge18 bronze badges
1
Extend the metaphor - try extreme macro photography at 30mm... if a car goes past outside your focus can be off ...vs... pick one mountain at 5km, recompose to include the one next to it ;)
– Tetsujin
8 hours ago
@Tetsujib you’re reminding me of when I shot the moon at 400mm on a junk tripod. Yea that was motion blur over focus issues...but those damn cars ;-)
– Hueco
8 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Extend the metaphor - try extreme macro photography at 30mm... if a car goes past outside your focus can be off ...vs... pick one mountain at 5km, recompose to include the one next to it ;)
– Tetsujin
8 hours ago
@Tetsujib you’re reminding me of when I shot the moon at 400mm on a junk tripod. Yea that was motion blur over focus issues...but those damn cars ;-)
– Hueco
8 hours ago
1
1
Extend the metaphor - try extreme macro photography at 30mm... if a car goes past outside your focus can be off ...vs... pick one mountain at 5km, recompose to include the one next to it ;)
– Tetsujin
8 hours ago
Extend the metaphor - try extreme macro photography at 30mm... if a car goes past outside your focus can be off ...vs... pick one mountain at 5km, recompose to include the one next to it ;)
– Tetsujin
8 hours ago
@Tetsujib you’re reminding me of when I shot the moon at 400mm on a junk tripod. Yea that was motion blur over focus issues...but those damn cars ;-)
– Hueco
8 hours ago
@Tetsujib you’re reminding me of when I shot the moon at 400mm on a junk tripod. Yea that was motion blur over focus issues...but those damn cars ;-)
– Hueco
8 hours ago
add a comment |
The problem with lenses wide open (gross generalization coming) is softness moving toward the corners - and this will be there no matter the exactness of your focus.
The problem with focus and recompose is that it’s very easy to minutely change the distance to which you are focusing...not that you’re actually refocusing but that by changing the camera angle, the distance to your new subject is minutely different.
The problems compound when using a lens at a large aperture where DoF is mere millimeters anyway (now your shot is OOF from sloppy recompose technique) and compounded by putting the subject in a soft portion of the lens.
All that being said, I’ve missed more shots to OOF than lens sharpness. Of the two, that’s the more critical issue in my book.
answered 9 hours ago
HuecoHueco
14.1k3 gold badges29 silver badges64 bronze badges
add a comment |
The problem with lenses wide open (gross generalization coming) is softness moving toward the corners - and this will be there no matter the exactness of your focus.
The problem with focus and recompose is that it’s very easy to minutely change the distance to which you are focusing...not that you’re actually refocusing but that by changing the camera angle, the distance to your new subject is minutely different.
The problems compound when using a lens at a large aperture where DoF is mere millimeters anyway (now your shot is OOF from sloppy recompose technique) and compounded by putting the subject in a soft portion of the lens.
All that being said, I’ve missed more shots to OOF than lens sharpness. Of the two, that’s the more critical issue in my book.
answered 9 hours ago
HuecoHueco
14.1k3 gold badges29 silver badges64 bronze badges
add a comment |
The problem with lenses wide open (gross generalization coming) is softness moving toward the corners - and this will be there no matter the exactness of your focus.
The problem with focus and recompose is that it’s very easy to minutely change the distance to which you are focusing...not that you’re actually refocusing but that by changing the camera angle, the distance to your new subject is minutely different.
The problems compound when using a lens at a large aperture where DoF is mere millimeters anyway (now your shot is OOF from sloppy recompose technique) and compounded by putting the subject in a soft portion of the lens.
All that being said, I’ve missed more shots to OOF than lens sharpness. Of the two, that’s the more critical issue in my book.
answered 9 hours ago
HuecoHueco
14.1k3 gold badges29 silver badges64 bronze badges
The problem with lenses wide open (gross generalization coming) is softness moving toward the corners - and this will be there no matter the exactness of your focus.
The problem with focus and recompose is that it’s very easy to minutely change the distance to which you are focusing...not that you’re actually refocusing but that by changing the camera angle, the distance to your new subject is minutely different.
The problems compound when using a lens at a large aperture where DoF is mere millimeters anyway (now your shot is OOF from sloppy recompose technique) and compounded by putting the subject in a soft portion of the lens.
All that being said, I’ve missed more shots to OOF than lens sharpness. Of the two, that’s the more critical issue in my book.
answered 9 hours ago
HuecoHueco
14.1k3 gold badges29 silver badges64 bronze badges
answered 9 hours ago
HuecoHueco
14.1k3 gold badges29 silver badges64 bronze badges
answered 9 hours ago
HuecoHueco
14.1k3 gold badges29 silver badges64 bronze badges
answered 9 hours ago
HuecoHueco
14.1k3 gold badges29 silver badges64 bronze badges
14.1k3 gold badges29 silver badges64 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f109089%2fdoes-image-quality-of-the-lens-affect-focus-and-recompose-technique%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
