Longer lens is what you need here for a shot like this with more depth of focus. Should try 210mm.
Printable View
It bares to be repeated, there is no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to depth of field.
The only thing that really matters is the aperture.
Focal length is irrelevant if you weight in magnification.
Trust me, if you choose a longer or shorter focal length, and then move further away or closer to the subject to get the same magnification as before (i.e the same crop sort of), then you are also getting the same depth of field as before.
Physics makes you pay for what you eat.
Looks like you focused too far forward, if I understood your description. My 'trick' is to pick a place to focus, then slowly close the aperture and watch my near and far points come into focus. In most situations, if I have placed my focus in the right spot, the near and far points will come into focus at about the same time (aperture). If the near point comes into focus way before the far point, I move the focus back a little and check it again.
In such situations diffraction is insignificant compared to focus...head to f45!
I believe my thinking was that knowing the depth of field was going to be very limited, I risked having nothing in focus unless I concentrated on the important part of the image. It’s easy enough to re-visit the tree and play around with the technique you are describing. Incidentally, do you practice the back and forth focussing at widest aperture, or stopped down? I find assessing sharp focus on the ground glass is much more difficult at small apertures.
Bob is correct as usual
I often use https://www.dofmaster.com/charts.html
and others for visualization
I put small flashlights in dark corners to check image size
Shoot tiny format...
I am not 'back and forth' focusing. I am just slowly closing the aperture while studying the GG. I pick my near point and far focus points and watch both as I close down. If that mountain in the back and the bush close in front of me both come into focus at the same time, I know I've placed my plane of focus in the 'right' spot. If the mountain comes into focus while the bush is not yet become sharp, then I need to move my focus plane closer to the camera.
Thanks for the clarification
Situations like this is where the "near-far" focusing method really helps. Choose the closest and farthest points in the scene you want. Focus on each, note the position on the camera rail and then simply position the focus halfway between the two extremes (in distance on the camera rail).
And, if you're using the method described in the article I linked to earlier, you can use the focus spread to find your optimum aperture. EZPZ and reliable. I swear by this method.
The only real possibility for error in in choosing the focus points. When in doubt (is that piece of bark there closer than the knot on the right?) focus on both and see which one is actually the closest or farthest (most/least bellows draw). I use wooden field cameras and have simply printed out millimeter scales onto label stock and affixed them to the camera bed.
Best,
Doremus
If the lens (focal length/type greatly irrelevant) was focused as noted on the right hand bark circled with arrow, improved areas of perceived focus can be enhanced by focusing on the part of this tree circled with the arrow on the left as noted.
Attachment 227899
Keep in mind the area/plane/point of perceived to be in focus grows more away from the lens as the lens aperture is reduced (that focus "1/3" in idea). In the case of large lens aperture the area in perceived focus is about equal towards then away from the actual area/plane/point of focus.
Attachment 227900
Image klepped from, then notes added in orange.
https://www.edmundoptics.com/knowled...epth-of-focus/
Lens type/focal length is not really relevant as this is innate to lens behavior controlled by the way Nature (Physics) is... and Nature will NOT be denied or ignored.
Bernice