• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Beginner with a Yashica FX-3 Super 2000 How can I really understand and control Depth of Field on film?

Pedroga

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Feb 4, 2026
Messages
28
Location
Brazil
Format
35mm
I have a Yashica FX-3 Super 2000, and I’m a complete beginner in analog photography (honestly, photography in general).

I’m trying to properly understand Depth of Field, but here’s my main problem:

the viewfinder doesn’t show changes in real time, so I have no idea how the photo will actually look on film. It feels like the result could be either a horribly blurry mess or a perfect shot — and right now it’s basically luck.

I tried a few Depth of Field simulator websites, but I’m not sure I fully understood how to apply that information in real life.

My lens has that distance and depth-of-field scale (kind of like a ruler), and I was told it’s used to “calculate” or estimate DoF. I want to learn how to use this properly and professionally, not just guess and hope it works.

For example:

  • I want to take a portrait where the person in front of me is completely sharp and the background is blurred.
  • I want to take a wide landscape where everything is sharp, even people in the scene.
  • Or even a portrait with the background also in focus.

Right now, my understanding is something like this:

For a portrait, I should open the aperture to around f/5, use a 50mm lens, focus at about 1.5 meters, and shoot.

But I honestly don’t know if I’m on the right track or just repeating things without really understanding them.

How do you actually learn to predict and control Depth of Field on a fully manual film camera like this, before pressing the shutter?

ML Zoom 35-70mm F/3.5-4.8 Lente C/Y

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Choose another camera. One that has a depth of field preview button. Though, I have five FX-3 and can say I never missed having a DOF preview button.
 
Commonly understood principles...
  1. Controlling (and understanding) DOF is no different on film than it is for a digital camera
  2. DOF is always 'thinner' with a larger aperture (smaller number in f/-stop) than smaller aperture
  3. DOF is always 'thinner' at really close subject distances than at really far subject distances
Commonly not understood...
  1. DOF tables and DOF marks on lenses most usually have poorer basis, in the human eye's actual abililty to detect what is 'not in focus'...most eyes actually see LESS DOF than the DOF tables and lens marks lead you be believe. This is often referred to as 'manufacturer standard' DOF calculation, but the average person has better visual acuity than that poor assumption.
  2. DOF tables and lens marks assume you are looking at an enlargement which is 8x10" from about 10" away. If you make a different size print, and/or view it from any other distance other than the diagonal measure of the print, the DOF tables and scales will NOT APPLY!
    A smaller print will seem to have more 'in focus', while a larger print will seem to have less 'in focus', at the same viewing distance.
  3. If you crop the image to smaller than the full image of the original camera frame, DOF calculations applying to that image will be invalidated.
  4. If you shoot with different FL lenses, and if your camera is proportionally farther away with longer FL, the DOF will be THE SAME!!!
    ● the portrait shot with 50mm FL at f/4 at subject distance of 5' will have manufacturer standard DOF zone which is 0.75'
    ● the portrait shot with 100mm FL at f/4 at subject distance of 10' will have manufacturer standard DOF zone which is 0.75'
    ● the portrait shot with 200mm FL at f/4 at subject distance of 20' will have manufacturer DOF zone which is 0.75'
Having stated the above, as the reality of DOF, responding to each of your bulleted quesions in sequence...
  • Take the portrait with a fairly large aperture (small f/number), focus on the subject's eyes...the eyes will be in perfect focus, things that are near to the plane of the eyes will SEEM TO BE in focus, and things far behind will be more blurry (out of focus). For someone with 20/20 vision looking at an 8x10" print from 10" away the portrait shot with 100mm FL at f/4 at subject distance of 10' will have manufacturer standard DOF zone which is 0.75', but the usual person with usual visual acuity will perceive that things outside a DOF zone of 0.25' are out of focus (blurry)
  • Take the wide landscape with a smaller aperture, focus on the people (about the center depth of the group, if they stand at different distances from you) with a smaller aperture (like f/11), and things closer and farther back will be 'in focus'. If you can stand 25' away from the group, things will appear to be 'in focus' from about 20-40', even though manufacturer standard will lead you to think that the DOF zone is about 12' - Infinity!
  • You will NOT be able to shoot a portrait with the background 'in focus'...with 50mm lens at f/11 even if you are taking a full length 'portrait' from 25' away, your eyes will tell you that the DOF zone is about 18' - 39', even though manufacturer standard will lie to you about the DOF zone being 12' - Infinity
The DOF preview button will give you a better idea of the final shot DOF, but it is never an accurate representation! And hyperfocal distance calculations are of limited value in understanding what will be 'in focus' in a shot.
 
Last edited:

Test shots, review film, repeat. Keep good notes.
Experience, even DOF preview can be vexing
 
ic-racer said:
Choose another camera. One that has a depth of field preview button. Though, I have five FX-3 and can say I never missed having a DOF preview button.
Click to expand...
I just bought this camera and I really miss having a depth-of-field preview button.




I think I more or less understand it now, but in practice I wouldn’t be able to do this with my lens since it only goes up to 70mm, right?


Don_ih said:
Depth of field is on your lens.
Click to expand...

Where is it on my lens, and how do I use the scale on my lens?
 
If it is this lens, I don't thing there are any Depth of Field scales on it.
https://lens-db.com/yashica-ml-35-70mm-f35-48-1986/


Pedroga said:
I think I more or less understand it now, but in practice I wouldn’t be able to do this with my lens since it only goes up to 70mm, right?
Click to expand...

There is a noticeable difference in the depth of field characteristics of your lens between using it at 35mm and at 70mm.
And once you have a little more experience with this, you will find that you can really notice the differences between depth of field at 35mm, 50mm and 70mm - at least near the f/3.5 end of the aperture range.
 
Telephoto FL does have less DOF than use of WA FL at the same camera position, as the subject is larger with tele FL and the blur circles away from the plane of focus are more readily seen away from the plane of focus.

BUT Iif you shoot with different FL lenses, and if your camera is proportionally farther away with longer FL and the subject identically sized in all shots, and the DOF will be THE SAME!!!
● the portrait shot with 50mm FL at f/4 at subject distance of 5' will have manufacturer standard DOF zone which is 0.75'
● the portrait shot with 100mm FL at f/4 at subject distance of 10' will have manufacturer standard DOF zone which is 0.75'
● the portrait shot with 200mm FL at f/4 at subject distance of 20' will have manufacturer DOF zone which is 0.75'
 

This is exactly my lens.
 
Zoom lenses most often do not come with any DOF scale marks on them, when the zoom FL is controlled by a rotating ring design.
Zoom lenses that are push/pull for FL often had DOF scale marks, because the push/pull design permitted lines that spread out more at shorter FL, and narrowed at longer FL..

This shows a fixed FL lens with DOF scale...

[/URL]

...to read it, it is focused at 10m and
at f/4 the manufacturer standard DOF zone extends from about 8m - (guess) 20m
at f/11 the DOF zone extends from 4m to Infinity
 
Pedroga said:
I want to take a portrait where the person in front of me is completely sharp and the background is blurred.
Click to expand...

70mm and wide open aperture. Focus on the closest eye. If your lens is not sharp enough wide open, stop down once, but you get a less blurred background. The closer your subject is to you, the more the background will blur.

Pedroga said:
I want to take a wide landscape where everything is sharp, even people in the scene.
Click to expand...

35mm, f/11. Focus on the people or just slightly past them. Hyperfocal on those settings is 3.8 meters and everything from 1.9 meters to infinity will be sharp. If you stop down to f/16 it's 2.7 meters and everything from 1.3 meters will be sharp. These settings are sometimes known as the "snapshot" setting, they turn your camera into a set-it-and-forget-it point-and-shoot.

Hyperfocal Distance Calculator

Find out where to focus your camera to achieve the greatest depth of field using this hyperfocal distance calculator.
www.omnicalculator.com

Pedroga said:
Or even a portrait with the background also in focus.
Click to expand...

50-70mm, f/11. Longer focal length is better for shots where the face takes up a lot of the frame.

Or, if it's a fuller-body portrait where the subject is far away, the aperture doesn't matter much because you'll have a lot more depth of field.
 
Pedroga said:
This is exactly my lens.
Click to expand...

Pedroga said:
How do you actually learn to predict and control Depth of Field on a fully manual film camera like this, before pressing the shutter?
Click to expand...

You can begin by using the camera to view objects as close and far distances, at various focal lengths. Pay attention to how close and how far the blurriness in the viewfinder seems as you focus sharply on a single object and vary the focal length. The camera is showing you the view with the aperture open all the way. Any stopping down will increase the depth of field while keeping your selected object in focus. 35mm focal length will have a greater depth of field than 70mm. The farther away your selected object of focus, the less that matters. (Of course, if you focus on something distant but something is very close in the frame, it will be more or less blurry depending on focal length and aperture - but still always blurry. Focusing on the distant mountains will also put the clouds behind them in focus - and anything more than 100 feet away from you in focus - at any focal length and aperture.)

70mm does not have an excessively shallow depth of field. I have exactly that lens. My main problem with it is it's not sharp. I was surprised, actually, because all the Yashica prime lenses are very sharp, so maybe mine is a dud. If you want a better understanding of depth of field, get pretty much any prime lens with a scale such as shown above. That scale gives you a better idea than a depth of field preview lever.

However, if you want a preview, set the aperture of the lens, look through the viewfinder, hold the lens-release button in, and (without changingn focal length or focus or aperture) rotate the entire lens clockwise. That causes the aperture to stop down. (It also will remove the lens if you pull it off - so make sure you put it back on before you press the shutter.) I don't recommend that as a habit.
 

I’m seriously considering buying another lens just because of this limitation it’s giving me it feels like I’m chained to it.


It’s not really very sharp and all, I kind of knew that already, but I thought it would be ideal for learning…


It’s a prime lens, so everything I see in the viewfinder is always at f/3.5, which really sucks.
At first, I was thinking of using the split-image focusing circle in the viewfinder to help with focus lining it up perfectly on the subject’s eyes or the tip of the nose, and since the background would be farther away, the viewfinder would show it split, so I could assume it would be blurred.


But thinking about the fact that the aperture is always wide open, that idea immediately falls apart, because I also risk blurring the person’s face.


I left an example here of the kind of portrait I would like to TRY to take with my camera.


The idea of pressing the button and manually turning the diaphragm doesn’t seem like a great idea to me for now this is the only camera I have, and I really don’t want to mess it up right at the beginning lol. But if I buy another camera, this one will definitely be destined for experiments.


I thought my lens would have this because of that red line that doesn’t move on the lens barrel. Next to it there are two more red lines that only stay on the part before the focus ring, and the third line has a ‘35’ on it.

I’ll use your approach even without being able to see what’s happening in the viewfinder before pressing the shutter.
 

It wouldn't do any damage. And it would work.

You can take portraits just as good as that with your lens. Set the aperture open all the way and zoom the lens to 70. Step back to get that amount of body in the shot. Focus on the eyes. It'll be fine. For a "bust" portrait, you'd get enough dof to have the face in focus.
 

Wait, so here's the thing. My reasoning is this: Regardless of where the subject is, in this case the person in the portrait, as long as I focus on their eyes or the tip of their nose, the depth of field will ALWAYS be on them. That is, they will always be sharp in the photo and the background blurred (under the conditions we discussed earlier regarding exposure and 50-70mm lenses). So far, so good. In the photo in question, if I were to use a 70mm lens, I would have to be a little further away from them than 1.5m, maybe 2 or 2.5 meters, so they would be framed in the portrait, completely sharp, at least their whole face and hair, and below the line of their breasts would be slightly blurred, but still sharp compared to the background. Is my reasoning correct?
 
Pedroga said:
Is my reasoning correct?
Click to expand...

As you can see from the scale on the lens wiltw posted, the depth of field centres on the plane of focus. So, you focus on the eyes, the nose and hair are also in focus if within that depth. Assume that exact sharp focus is always just a fixed distance and that some area in front of and behind that is mostly in focus, and that area is more or less dependent on aperture. That's not really correct but it's practically correct enough. In other words, go with that idea and everything will work fine.

I'd suggest you load a roll of film and take some photos of a statue or similar. Different distances, focal lengths, apertures, and angles. Through use, you'll get a good idea of what the result will be.
 

Yes. And read my post #8 over and over and over...it matters NOT what FL your lens has, if the face is identically sized within your frame area, the DOF zone is always THE SAME regardless of FL used to take the shot!!! and the result will be similar to the example shot that you posted in post #13, if shot with a larger aperture (at the same aperture regardless of FL)
 
Pedroga said:
It’s a prime lens
Click to expand...

Prime lens means it doesn't zoom.

Pedroga said:
It’s not really very sharp and all, I kind of knew that already, but I thought it would be ideal for learning…
Click to expand...

If you're doing portrait work with it sharpness may not be necessary or desired. See how sharp it is at f/11 for landscape, most lenses can do pretty well there.
 
Pedroga said:
It’s a prime lens, so everything I see in the viewfinder is always at f/3.5, which really sucks.
Click to expand...

As mentioned earlier, "prime" lenses are lenses of a single focal length - not zooms.
And the fact that everything you see is viewed through the maximum aperture means that the camera and lens combination features what is known as "open aperture metering". That feature is an advantage, because it means that the viewing image is always at its brightest, and the focusing through the viewing system is easiest.
If you wish to be able to view at the lens aperture set by you, you need either an older camera where the viewfinder dimmed as you adjusted the aperture for metering, or a camera that has a depth of field preview feature.
There was a relatively short period of time long ago when open aperture metering was becoming common where cameras were equipped to use older lenses that didn't have the necessary open aperture levers built in. And there are still some really old lenses around that won't work with open aperture metering cameras in that mode, but I don't know if any of those old lenses would fit your Yashica camera body.
Over many decades, I've had many cameras with a depth of field preview function built in, plus quite a few that don't. When I've had it, I've rarely used it.
Take some photos with different settings and at different working distances. Make some notes. Then look at the results. You will get a good feeling for how it works soon enough.
With respect to the example you shared, is it your photo, or someone else's, and if you know, what can you tell us about format, lens, settings etc.?
 
loccdor said:
Prime lens means it doesn't zoom.
Click to expand...

In today's all-too-common MISUSE of terms from the past, 'prime lens' is fixed focal length vs. 'zoom' or variable FL

But in reality and the correct use of terms, 'prime' lens was originally used to define the lens that was afixed to the camera body, and a 'supplemental' a.k.a. convertor lens was used to modify the focal length of a primary lens by screwing onto its filter threads to create longer tele FL or shorter wide angle FL. Both fixed FL and zoom FL were 'prime' removable mount lenses.
 
Last edited:
That's some fine trivia, @wiltw - I never knew it. It makes sense, though. I never thought "prime" was a good word for a fixed-focal-length lens and have used it begrudgingly. Now I feel vindicated.
 
Don_ih said:
That's some fine trivia, @wiltw - I never knew it. It makes sense, though. I never thought "prime" was a good word for a fixed-focal-length lens and have used it begrudgingly. Now I feel vindicated.
Click to expand...

When you have evolved with photography over more than 6 decades, you understand the terminology as it evolved...'prime' vs 'supplemental' optics, 'fixed' vs 'zoom' focal lengths
Most of today's photographers have no comprehension that 7 decades ago all of this was not so 'standard'
  • instant return mirror
  • automatic stopdown diaphram control at time of exposure
  • cameras with exposure meters
  • 135 format cameras were 'miniature' format, and SLRs not so common until the 1950's
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I generally use a Leica III or a 4x5. So...
 

Sounds like a Hasselblad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register