Mobius 5MP Varifocal Zoom 6-22mm ƒ/1.6

Those images look great. It looks like you have plenty of depth of field, and good colours too. What lens profile are you using?

Lens profile "B"

So far, this appears to be an impressive lens! It blows the 2.8-12mm varifocal out of the water!

Depth of field is far better than anything I could achieve with the 2.8-12mm varifocal and the difference between the 3MP varifocal and this 5MP is quite remarkable. I was expecting the higher resolving power to make a difference but was not expecting anything quite this dramatic, especially given the sensor involved. Putting this lens on the new Maxi with its 2.7K sensor should prove interesting as this lens has got some chops! :joyful:

The interesting thing here is that I haven't had much time to fiddle with optimizing the camera settings. I basically replaced the 2.8-12mm lens with this one and ran with it, so further IQ tweaks are still possible.
 
Last edited:
I intend to try a varifocal lens on my Maxi soon. Today I tested the video out over USB. The Maxi comes with its own 10pin wiring harness, and connects to the RCA wiring from the Mobius 1.

I continue to remain puzzled (and disappointed!) that Mobius no longer provides RCA cables with the AV wiring harness that ship with the Maxi (and the M2) as they did previously with the M1.

In fact, I had several discussions with Peter about this in October/November 2016 wherein I expressed my opinion that buyers would want RCA cables included with the wiring harness (especially new buyers who don't already own an M1). As usual I got a friendly, apparently appreciative response to my feedback, but nothing came of it:

"The supplied AV cable of M2 is with audio out, video out and the 5V in, same as the original Mobius. You can use the RCA plugs and the USB power plug from original Mobius's AV cable (which has 4 parts: you can separate the 2 RCA plugs and the USB power plug from the cable, as they are connected by same connectors). We had no idea how important it is to a user. Thanks for letting us know. We just thought people may not want so many extra cables."
 
Last edited:
i think most of the people really don't care and will never use RCA cables...it's a small minority of users over here...
 
i think most of the people really don't care and will never use RCA cables...it's a small minority of users over here...

Obviously, you are not among the group of users who might want or need the RCA cables but the fact is that they were originally included for RC enthusiasts, the primary market for the Mobius camera, not a "a small minority of users over here".

Without the supplied RCA cable adapters an important functionality that was an original feature of the camera is lost.

Edit: At least the wiring harness (with RCA cables included) is still available for separate purchase. With my first Mobius 1 purchases these were included at no charge with a little tag that said "gift". I believe later on they were simply included with the camera.
 
Last edited:
@Dashmellow
Oh, not a all, I am among them. But I am part of a minority, most people will just use the camera w/o playing, modding and stuff.
Most on the people "here" in this forum (and others such in Rcgroups) might like to tinker and use most of the stuff, but not most of those who purchase the cameras.

Unless you don't see them all over here...
24,104 SOLD.jpg
 
The Mobius is a boutique enthusiast's camera, very different than any other typical consumer action cam. In fact, the camera was specifically developed for the FPV enthusiast, hence the AV connectivity. Tinkering with alternative lenses may be one thing but hooking it up to a monitor is a core aspect of the product. Also, the fact that it comes with a user focus-able lens implies that it needs to be connectable to an AV monitor or a computer, so a lot of users would certainly need or want that ability.

You can't reach such assumptions about how the buyers are using the cameras based on sales numbers alone, so I'm a little unclear what your graphic is supposed to be telling us.
 
Last edited:
@Dashmellow, when is your maxi coming in, and where did you order from? I was going over the pictures (above) from the Mobius 1 and the 6-22 f1.6 and am actually amazed, they are awesome, can't wait to I see that lens on the Maxi. I can't imagine the pictures will be any better, it's just hard to come up with a word better then Awesome(y):cool:.

Question, on the 6-22 lens, is the last lens in the barrel have the same size securing ring around it that the 2.8 -12 has in your opinion (looking down the barrel), just want to make sure the 9.5 cut IR lens will be the same fit/install .
 
Last edited:
@Dashmellow, when is your maxi coming in, and where did you order from? I was going over the pictures (above) from the Mobius 1 and the 6-22 f1.6 and am actually amazed, they are awesome, can't wait to I see that lens on the Maxi. I can't imagine the pictures will be any better, it's just hard to come up with a word better then Awesome(y):cool:.

Question, on the 6-22 lens, is the last lens in the barrel have the same size securing ring around it that the 2.8 -12 has in your opinion (looking down the barrel), just want to make sure the 9.5 cut IR lens will be the same fit/install .

Yeah, I'm really thrilled with the results from the new varifocal lens, especially considering that it's on a camera that came out five years ago.

Yes, the 9.5mm IR-cut filter fits nicely inside the lens barrel of the 6-22mm varifocal. The M12 threaded lens tube is the same as the 2.8-12mm as is the retaining ring around the lens where you apply the cement to affix the filter. Just be REALLY careful when applying the UV cement and mounting the filter. The tiniest dab of glue spreads out WAY more than you might expect. I suggest practicing first on something you can't ruin like gluing two small pieces of glass together or whatever, just to get a feel for how the glue spreads. Just a tiny, tiny bit of cement applied to three or four places around the lens ring with a straight pin or toothpick is all you need. When working on the lens to install the filter I wore nitrile gloves to handle the filter and the lens to avoid fingerprints. Make sure the gloves are as dust free as possible before touching anything with them. Keep some compressed air on hand to make sure the lens and filter are dust free before you start.

As for the Maxi, I didn't exactly order one. It's being very generously provided to me by Peter from Mobius for evaluation. I know it's on its way but I don't yet know when it will arrive. Can't wait!! :joyful:
 
I am extremely impressed by both the resolved detail and the depth of field in my first trials with this 6-22mm f1.6 varifocal lens.


The land rover in front of me is perhaps 20m away. The obelisk in the distance is 1.5 miles away.
y4mBdttGtQOnNxwTUNL3-TuC_5hhM6E3okdbpR3PFk5R1r1gUCMEl0ISGznd5BG9AduEwfwQ45aOBDmLXZCTi3AYfQFPLYxRosNFpxwqIBeD-OwjA67XQmOSEBkv9PeX8Fq3Czdz-j_fmjWNlWN9ON_WGPB58dJ-5fnOWL33nFT0KTey6xdrCdpAQyMDDJsrP2A_MIdaeqrT91DCgxyHuGF3Q



y4mG6SSTBYCu0xZ6IFxq89FMspoVL6O7LCgRBS9zIlSSiptLvNbkuucnnd6O0T0RHz3JBoRs1xuOCgz8Og3HSVOQVqzhNzG5gpqhM4-_QKPkSLJdshgyLQkvTvhAtcdXtlzFEsD0-DDmi5ijSMzPkvrCUks1eDJevLauSXOkW_W3NrCZ1cjAGKXblLa3fH8A2y2OlaHtr8Bh5b8Otw3jY4Emw


y4milUSdispYFdQK1tjMrY4xh-F8dP78r6PnU7lZpYsXgNV2DkqvAM71GWwXcOYwGGB1ZiKQB3IdWzvm_DpE3i-RFg8UpkXVErEgLman6zpN0WpilaWlqrxQrHulxDoWpVTL8odczL3XoTxxpfF0LLbGgLES5FyqiXd0-hPkKx6a4eQFQeqJ30aZ0GbedLUfbr_-TAMJ5z4lzYC6k4wH7ThBg


y4mkb-wv__DpPEtY_Hm_ow62DgaqWWyMeUFtD5NlE0rUI8getospQuVYjkHWYfR55duIZXTe1sTKmPbxLwlG3Lhl1_kvWTbgnwCbWVHqPaH3xLnMePJRuEBJEQV-xzzbB7Pj2RVKeWewRjoxA7gagDQJj7FuyZuciLzmK75wd89qBa25FlhHx-IGSIdVLVBwj2Kjc2CCEYGMjQ5DQ9VAwfO2w


y4ms8Yf8GgCERwMUzBdBp8Zi_7ORxzWVH1gAgInbIUbLbwB7UC5PHkn2XRGIV-scR5BN6vbjv7ptEh_mFZaJGSu-yBCyJ9kD1dO6nqFlyP3nKy6Ez8Ba6Ik8_Oa9XKhPqmXN2izPeMeSwb1VCh7-m6juohyMPJimbxTdvW_IAQCakt4L0IVu84tX2lzB8jE52e1RDqMTS50U595KrHRTSXkQw


y4m6NHjVi3h8p4TPVqbdkkOL_COxg5o8VqdZ2cFP52h47zhRUehsmcxfqYKOK5cTrlb0wM1Ecbm0qm0lhl7eUaZWoCEnDmhuiHVqmo89RH-elBFZTtRipBJ6LFoSeYXpQ7uDhNE9KJPMsXahDeb8Asmja__uOwBYo_IRY90P92ZOBOef8eqxX-sbtSRcqj9lVgxmBhKw-PQR5Df7KLLrg54Ag
 
I'm a bit puzzled why you seem to keep bringing up things that are not quite germane to the subject at hand here and so I made an effort to clarify what we are actually discussing and working with here when I said above, "Well, remember, this is a thread about a 5MP ƒ/1.6 6-22mm varifocal lens that is designed for a 1/2.5" sensor which we are using on a 1/3" sensor."

In your response to my comment above you state that: "As for lens vs sensor sizing, when it's close, you can get the result you've found because I'm pretty sure lens manufacturers design in a bit of a margin for error simply because they want to avoid vignetting. It's always better to over fill than to vignette."

"Margin of error" has nothing whatsoever to do with the my results from this lens!

For one thing. I'm not clear how you even reach the conclusion that lens manufacturers design for a margin error as optics are generally designed to very exacting specifications to match specific sensors, which are also designed to very exacting specifications. Each lens design throws an image circle of different size but they are ALL designed to accommodate their rated specs rather than some "margin or error". I mean, you can characterize this as a "margin of error" but they are simply designed to do what they do, which is to throw an image circle large enough to cover the sensor they are rated for, otherwise they would not perform according to their rated specs. Lens designers don't say to themselves, "Hmmm....I think I'll add a little extra, just in case."

What I meant is that a margin of error is designed in ie as you pointed out the lens is designed to overfill the sensor slightly to avoid vignetting. I didn't mean it overfills then has an additional bit extra added!

For one thing, the 6-22mm ƒ/1.6 varifocal lens is designed specifically for a 1/2.5" image sensor. The Mobius camera uses a 1/3" sensor. Thus, the lens throws an image circle that is significantly larger than the camera's sensor and so vignetting is not in any way an issue.

That's my bad. Whilst tired I interpreted as 1/2.5 vs 1/3" as 1/4" vs 1/3", when in actual fact 1/2.5" exceeds 1/3" in size.


Secondly, you raised the concern about image cropping. This is not particularly relevant in this situation because of the particular sensor involved and this is what @Lola was actually referring to in her post (which was accurate).

To quote you: "With cropping there's also going to be the resolution issue as well as you're cropping only some of the pixels onto a MP sensor and so still need enough resolution to exceed the pixel resolution of the sensor otherwise you're going to lose resolution."

The 1/3" Aptina AR0330 sensor used in the Mobius has a CMOS array of 2304 x 1296 pixels. It uses pixel binning to scale this down to 1920 x 1080 when set to "wide mode". If you set the camera to shoot in "narrow mode", it captures a full 1920 x 1080 image directly from the center most portion of the CMOS array with no scaling. So again, we have a non-issue. No matter how much the image is cropped due to the size of the image circle thrown by the 5MP varifocal lens you will never lose enough resolution to be concerned with in any practical manner.

Here you misunderstood me. If the lens feeds a 2560 x 1920 image to the sensor (5mp, in this case) and you have a cropping factor that reduces that to below the resolution of the sensor, then you lose resolution because what you always get is a capture of the resolution fed by the lens. That's why I'm always an advocate of using high resolution lenses, because a picture can never be too sharp or detailed. In fact experience of 4K and HD TV shows downscaled images often appear sharper than natively shot images at the TV's resolution, despite both downscaled and native TV pictures being exactly the same resolution. SD from HD is far superior to native SD. Same with 4k to HD. So there's little doubt that with video, there is some advantage to resolution exceeding that of the final medium pre-downscaling. However, talking dashcams once more, if the resolution of the lens, whether it's native or cropped falls below the resolution of the sensor, then what you're getting is not the full sensor resolution but a capture at the sensors resolution of a picture at the lenses resolution, if that makes sense. That's why zoom factor apart, some care has to be taken to ensure the image fed to the sensor is at or above the sensor resolution. Is it a factor with this particular lens, probably not. However, to be sure you'd have to calculate the circle area vs active sensor capture (cropped) area, to compare the pixel values, something that's complex math, and I can't be bothered to do. It is a factor worth bearing in mind generally though.
 
Lens profile "B"

So far, this appears to be an impressive lens! It blows the 2.8-12mm varifocal out of the water!

Depth of field is far better than anything I could achieve with the 2.8-12mm varifocal and the difference between the 3MP varifocal and this 5MP is quite remarkable. I was expecting the higher resolving power to make a difference but was not expecting anything quite this dramatic, especially given the sensor involved. Putting this lens on the new Maxi with its 2.7K sensor should prove interesting as this lens has got some chops! :joyful:

The interesting thing here is that I haven't had much time to fiddle with optimizing the camera settings. I basically replaced the 2.8-12mm lens with this one and ran with it, so further IQ tweaks are still possible.

Very good results and a good illustration of what I was saying above about the advantages of feeding a sensor with an image way above sensor resolution. This has been the finding for TV video for some time, although I'm not sure anyone has explained it scientifically (at least on an ordinary forum) yet. For some reason, downscaled images maintain some of the resolution / sharpness advantages of the higher resolution image and so are superior to a native image of the same lower resolution. Or in very plain English, there appear to be advantages to using a lens with a resolving power way above the sensor resolution.
 
I am extremely impressed by both the resolved detail and the depth of field in my first trials with this 6-22mm f1.6 varifocal lens.


The land rover in front of me is perhaps 20m away. The obelisk in the distance is 1.5 miles away.
y4mBdttGtQOnNxwTUNL3-TuC_5hhM6E3okdbpR3PFk5R1r1gUCMEl0ISGznd5BG9AduEwfwQ45aOBDmLXZCTi3AYfQFPLYxRosNFpxwqIBeD-OwjA67XQmOSEBkv9PeX8Fq3Czdz-j_fmjWNlWN9ON_WGPB58dJ-5fnOWL33nFT0KTey6xdrCdpAQyMDDJsrP2A_MIdaeqrT91DCgxyHuGF3Q



y4mG6SSTBYCu0xZ6IFxq89FMspoVL6O7LCgRBS9zIlSSiptLvNbkuucnnd6O0T0RHz3JBoRs1xuOCgz8Og3HSVOQVqzhNzG5gpqhM4-_QKPkSLJdshgyLQkvTvhAtcdXtlzFEsD0-DDmi5ijSMzPkvrCUks1eDJevLauSXOkW_W3NrCZ1cjAGKXblLa3fH8A2y2OlaHtr8Bh5b8Otw3jY4Emw


y4milUSdispYFdQK1tjMrY4xh-F8dP78r6PnU7lZpYsXgNV2DkqvAM71GWwXcOYwGGB1ZiKQB3IdWzvm_DpE3i-RFg8UpkXVErEgLman6zpN0WpilaWlqrxQrHulxDoWpVTL8odczL3XoTxxpfF0LLbGgLES5FyqiXd0-hPkKx6a4eQFQeqJ30aZ0GbedLUfbr_-TAMJ5z4lzYC6k4wH7ThBg


y4mkb-wv__DpPEtY_Hm_ow62DgaqWWyMeUFtD5NlE0rUI8getospQuVYjkHWYfR55duIZXTe1sTKmPbxLwlG3Lhl1_kvWTbgnwCbWVHqPaH3xLnMePJRuEBJEQV-xzzbB7Pj2RVKeWewRjoxA7gagDQJj7FuyZuciLzmK75wd89qBa25FlhHx-IGSIdVLVBwj2Kjc2CCEYGMjQ5DQ9VAwfO2w


y4ms8Yf8GgCERwMUzBdBp8Zi_7ORxzWVH1gAgInbIUbLbwB7UC5PHkn2XRGIV-scR5BN6vbjv7ptEh_mFZaJGSu-yBCyJ9kD1dO6nqFlyP3nKy6Ez8Ba6Ik8_Oa9XKhPqmXN2izPeMeSwb1VCh7-m6juohyMPJimbxTdvW_IAQCakt4L0IVu84tX2lzB8jE52e1RDqMTS50U595KrHRTSXkQw


y4m6NHjVi3h8p4TPVqbdkkOL_COxg5o8VqdZ2cFP52h47zhRUehsmcxfqYKOK5cTrlb0wM1Ecbm0qm0lhl7eUaZWoCEnDmhuiHVqmo89RH-elBFZTtRipBJ6LFoSeYXpQ7uDhNE9KJPMsXahDeb8Asmja__uOwBYo_IRY90P92ZOBOef8eqxX-sbtSRcqj9lVgxmBhKw-PQR5Df7KLLrg54Ag



These look great but the focus is just a bit off! You'll see as you become more familiar with using a varifocal lens on a dash cam that achieving optimal focus can be quite a challenge and a sometimes elusive target. It takes some experimentation to find the hyperfocal distance that works best so that you end up with the proper balance between near and distant focus. I think if you compare the 6-22mm traffic screen shots I posted to these with a critical eye, you'll see what I'm talking about. I haven't spoken much about my experiences focusing the varifocals but it's a topic worthy of some discussion here, that's for sure. These CCTV lenses were designed for static surveillance situations and using them in a dynamic environment such as on a dash cam presents a very different set of variables. This lens seems more forgiving than the 2.8-12mm lens when it comes to focusing but still requires tinkering. You'll see!......Have fun! :geek:
 
Last edited:
These look great but the focus is just a bit off! You'll see as you become more familiar with using a varifocal lens on a dash cam that achieving optimal focus can be quite a challenge and a sometimes elusive target. It takes some experimentation to find the hyperfocal distance that works best so that you end up with the proper balance between near and distant focus. I think if you compare the 6-22mm traffic screen shots I posted to these with a critical eye, you'll see what I'm talking about. I haven't spoken much about my experiences focusing the varifocals but it's a topic worthy of some discussion here, that's for sure. These CCTV lenses were designed for static surveillance situations and using them in a dynamic environment such as on a dash cam presents a very different set of variables. This lens seems more forgiving than the 2.8-12mm lens when it comes to focusing but still requires tinkering. You'll see!......Have fun! :geek:
Well, I was already fairly happy with these initial results, although I noted that they were not quite as crisp as your examples, partly due to the overcast conditions with light rain. I'll certainly try to optimise the focus point over time.
 
Maybe one approach to take would be a static resolution chart set up at an appropriate distance which you could then zoom in on at your chosen zoom setting. It may be easier to see unsharp edges on chart lines than a slight general unsharpness in a complex real world picture generally, especially considering that monitor size may be an issue unless you can get your Mobius connected to a large laptop or desktop display.
 
Maybe one approach to take would be a static resolution chart set up at an appropriate distance which you could then zoom in on at your chosen zoom setting. It may be easier to see unsharp edges on chart lines than a slight general unsharpness in a complex real world picture generally, especially considering that monitor size may be an issue unless you can get your Mobius connected to a large laptop or desktop display.

c4rc4m, my friend, you have no idea what you are talking about in regard to how one needs to go about focusing one of these lenses. It's not about some imagined "general unsharpness in a complex real world picture", :rolleyes: nor is it about "chosen zoom settings". It's about choosing the correct hyperfocal range for the way the lens is being used and that can be very tricky when using this CCTV lens on a dash cam. Well intentioned as it may be, why hand out advice about something you have no personal knowledge of or experience with?

BTW, just so you know, with this particular 6-22mm ƒ/1.6 varifocal lens that static resolution chart you are recommending would have to be about 100 feet from the camera regardless of what size monitor you are using to focus on. How big do you think it would need to be?
 
Last edited:
I've seen charts or at least static target photos used with CCTV and I know how difficult it can be to focus cameras using a general scene. I tried to refocus my mobius using the live stream and a laptop and found getting the focus exactly correct to be very difficult.

Not quite sure why you'd want to set 100 feet as the hyperfocal distance. Whilst it might be the theoretical hyperfocal distance, it will compromise the sharpness of near objects a little as everything from 1/2 the hyperfocal distance to infinity is sharp, so that's 50 feet with a 100ft hypefocal . Given that most people probably want maximium sharpness maybe 10-15 feet from the bonnet, or 20 feet overall, would it not make more sense to set it using the double the distance method ie 30-40 feet away? Yes the very far distance will lose a little detail. However, I'm sure most people would rather have razor sharp close in plates than a compromise on close in sharpness to provide a razor sharp sign 200 feet away down the road.
 
I've seen charts or at least static target photos used with CCTV and I know how difficult it can be to focus cameras using a general scene. I tried to refocus my mobius using the live stream and a laptop and found getting the focus exactly correct to be very difficult.

Not quite sure why you'd want to set 100 feet as the hyperfocal distance. Whilst it might be the theoretical hyperfocal distance, it will compromise the sharpness of near objects a little as everything from 1/2 the hyperfocal distance to infinity is sharp, so that's 50 feet with a 100ft hypefocal . Given that most people probably want maximium sharpness maybe 10-15 feet from the bonnet, or 20 feet overall, would it not make more sense to set it using the double the distance method ie 30-40 feet away? Yes the very far distance will lose a little detail. However, I'm sure most people would rather have razor sharp close in plates than a compromise on close in sharpness to provide a razor sharp sign 200 feet away down the road.

Well, first off, I never said anything about setting the hyperfocal distance at 100 feet, so kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth. With this new lens, so far I often focus on a tree about 100 feet from my window and bring the depth of focus backwards towards the near field until I find the apparent optimal point of focus but occasionally on other nearer objects. Unlike my other varifocal lens, this one seems happier (and easier) when focused farther away because of its greater depth of field. The other varifocal seems to like being focused on objects closer in to achieve the desired results.

You know, it's always rather tedious when you engage in one of these pointless circular arguments where you try to demonstrate how knowledgeable you are about all things optical but then end up showing us quite the opposite. Somehow, I'm not the least surprised to hear you admit to having so much difficulty focusing your Mobius and especially that you find it difficult to, “focus cameras using a general scene”. Perhaps your eyesight is very poor or maybe you just don't know quite how to go about it?

One of the things that so often comes across with all of your commentary, lecturing and handing out advice along coupled with all the table pounding about how pricey high end, high resolution rectilinear lenses should be used on dash cams is that you appear to have no little or no actual hands-on experience with any of these things you talk about all the time. From all appearances, with the exception of the now destroyed Mobius you've had such a disastrous self inflicted experience with, you don't appear to own any aftermarket M12 lenses of any quality or even a suitable camera to put one so how would you know what it is like to do this, especially with a varifocal?

Had you been out here working with, testing, experimenting with and learning about the individual characteristics of various alternative aftermarket lenses the way @TonyM, @Harsh, @dirkzelf , @kamkar1, @jackalopephoto , me and quite a growing list of others here on DCT have been doing for some time now, you just might have a better idea of what you are talking about from a practical, experiential perspective. Where all of us have been actively discussing and posting many examples of our work, you seem to have absolutely nothing to show for yourself except opinions. It all comes across as armchair posing from a distinctly vicarious perspective. If you really want to hand out advice, why not show us first hand what you are talking about and what you can achieve rather than simply parrot things you appear to have read about or seen on the internet?

This notion of using a large static CCTV focusing chart as you have repeatedly advised here in this thread is about as impractical an idea as I can imagine, plus of course, you'd need to go out and spend the money to obtain one of those things. If you had any real world experience focusing a varifocal lens for use on a dash cam you might realize just how much of a fool's errand that would be. You'd turn a simple focusing procedure that takes a few moments into a long tedious affair of setting up the chart and moving it repeatedly to different locations when you eventually discover it wasn't quite in what you thought was the optimal spot to begin with, all the while racing back to your camera each and every time to check focus. Oh, then you'd need to put the whole set-up away until the next time. And if you somehow discovered while driving around that the point of focus you chose wasn't quite what you were expecting you'd have to go back and set everything up again.

Unlike you, I don't find it too difficult to “focus cameras using a general scene”. I simply point the camera out the window at a nearby tree or shrub and focus on the bark, leaves or branches which serve as excellent “focusing charts”.

Kindly take another look at the various images I posted the other day in this thread. Are those sharp enough for you?? Are the nearby plate numbers distinct and is the rest of the scene clearly defined? Do you really think I require or want your tutoring about how to go about focusing one of these lenses?

What you obviously don't know is that while varifocal lenses can be quick and easy to zoom and focus, using them on a dash cam can be especially challenging and even a bit exasperating at times. These are fixed aperture variable focal length lenses that were specifically designed for use on static surveillance cameras. They were never designed with the dynamic environment of a dash cam inside a moving vehicle in traffic in mind.

Let me state that again: These are manually operated FIXED APERTURE zoom lenses. While there are many auto iris adjusting zoom lenses on the market, including some CCTV lenses these manual lenses have only a fixed aperture. That means that every time you vary the focal length of this lens, each degree of zoom you choose will change the amount of depth of field you have available to you because the fixed aperture size becomes a relative one according to the focal length. This can make it very challenging and occasionally even exasperating to achieve the desired focus and optimal hyperfocal distance. If you change the focal length by zooming the lens, even a modest amount and then go to focus on the same object at the same distance as you did previously, you are likely to find that the depth of focus has changed to a position you didn't quite anticipate. You'll now need to find a different focus point to keep the hyperfocal distance within the desired parameters.

All in all, I'm finding this 6-22mm ƒ/1.6 varifocal lens to be vastly easier and more forgiving to focus for dash cam use than the 2.8mm-12mm ƒ/1.4 variofocal lens which can sometime be difficult to get “tuned-in”the way I like it. Generally speaking this new lens has a far greater depth of field at all focal lengths but it can also still offer unexpected results at times. The trick is always to move the depth of field in and out until you find that sweet spot where cars directly in front of you are clearly in focus but objects in the mid and farther distance are as well.

Just the other day, not long after posting those beautifully sharp screen shots I did some further macro experimentation with the 6-22mm. Then later I set the camera back to a focal length somewhere in the middle of the range and focused on the same tree out my window I used last time. After that I made a quick trip into town only to discover when I got home and looked at the footage that cars right in front of me where in very sharp focus but cars out in the mid distance where quite out of focus, much more than I might have expected. It seems that the focal length I had chosen to zoom at was different enough from the focal length I chose last time to give me entirely different depth of field results when focusing on the same tree I had previously despite what I thought I saw on my screen.

Only actual hands on experience with different lenses will teach you these things. For example, many of us who experimented with the fast ƒ/1.2 Treeye Starlight lenses reported that they can be a real bear to focus properly due to their shallow depth of field. As I gain experience with this new varifocal lens I'm learning its strengths and weaknesses and discovering how best to optimize my experience with it.

And when I discover the exact focal length I prefer when using this varifocal as a dash cam lens I think I'll probably mark the lens barrel so that I can easily return to that setting. From my experience, sometimes focusing a varifocal for dash cam use can be somewhat of an artform but eventually you figure out how to turn it into more of a science once you get a feel for its idiosyncrasies. Either way, it's certainly annoying to listen to someone who has not spent any time at all learning what to expect from these aftermarket lenses explaining to us how it should be done.
 
Last edited:
Well, first off, I never said anything about setting the hyperfocal distance at 100 feet, so kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth.

?:

BTW, just so you know, with this particular 6-22mm ƒ/1.6 varifocal lens that static resolution chart you are recommending would have to be about 100 feet from the camera regardless of what size monitor you are using to focus on. How big do you think it would need to be?

With this new lens, so far I often focus on a tree about 100 feet from my window and bring the depth of focus backwards towards the near field until I find the apparent optimal point of focus but occasionally on other nearer objects. Unlike my other varifocal lens, this one seems happier (and easier) when focused farther away because of its greater depth of field. The other varifocal seems to like being focused on objects closer in to achieve the desired results.

Isn't that what the hyperfocal focus is? The point at which the lens produces the maximum apparent depth of field front to back, albeit in actual fact, the truely sharp zone is from 1/2 the hyerpfocal distance to infinity.

You know, it's always rather tedious when you engage in one of these pointless circular arguments where you try to demonstrate how knowledgeable you are about all things optical but then end up showing us quite the opposite. Somehow, I'm not the least surprised to hear you admit to having so much difficulty focusing your Mobius and especially that you find it difficult to, “focus cameras using a general scene”. Perhaps your eyesight is very poor or maybe you just don't know quite how to go about it?

Have uo ever thought that maybe the laptop screen is just very small and with light reflecting off it in a car interior, it's difficult to pick out detail in a confused general scene , something that would be helped by parallel lines or text. Your choice of tree bark is probably a good one, but relies on the fact that you can both power your camera and connect it to a monitor large enough to make meaningful adjustments. I'd guess your probably focusing it from a window with the live feed to a pc monitor, an excellent solution. Unfortunately, not everyone can manage the same set up. The have you thought about using a chart comment was aimed to be helpful for those people who aren't perhaps able to set their cameras up in a situation such as yours. It's very unfriendly just to assume everyone can manage the same set up as you and no-one needs the assistance of aids such as printable charts, or text, or targets or whatever they may choose to assist with focusing.

One of the things that so often comes across with all of your commentary, lecturing and handing out advice along coupled with all the table pounding about how pricey high end, high resolution rectilinear lenses should be used on dash cams is that you appear to have no little or no actual hands-on experience with any of these things you talk about all the time.

I'm entitled an opinion, I don't lecture, everyone has free choice to agree or not.

From all appearances, with the exception of the now destroyed Mobius you've had such a disastrous self inflicted experience with, you don't appear to own any aftermarket M12 lenses of any quality or even a suitable camera to put one so how would you know what it is like to do this, especially with a varifocal?

Again that's an assumption and obviously Canon et al etc are wasting their time producing high quality distortion free lenses for pros when they could have used a £50 consumer lens all of the time. Dashcams are not a special category, the same rules of physics apply to them as for any camera. Just look in any magazine and then try reproducing the same quality of photos with a consumer grade lens, - you won't be able to because the advantages of the higher grade glass - rectilinear properties and higher resolving power make a difference.

In your own tests above, you expressed surprise at how a higher resolution lens produced a better picture on your Mobius, despite me suggesting in several other threads that a higher resolving power improved the picture, and being knocked down by you for suggesting it was financially worth putting a high mp lens on a much smaller resolution camera.

Also, these you destroyed your Mobius comments are becoming very tired. So I dropped my Mobius, so what? Many people have dropped or otherwise broken a camera. Your like a broken record, and whilst we're talking of records, the Mobius 1B was one of the best cameras I had. Could it have been tweaked to be better? Probably, and again Kamkar showed that some time ago with an accessory lens he bought and fitted to his Mobius. That doesn't detract from it being a very good camera overall.

TBH, I'm not going to comment on the rest of your post to keep this short. Making these personal attacks and ramblings does nothing for the thread other than derail it from what's important. You clearly know a lot of your stuff, and no doubt more than me in some areas, (yes I admit that I'm not particularly and expert on hyperfocals), and you are doing so great experiments with other lenses, and obtaining great results as we see above. It's just a pity you feel the need to get personal. I thought we were over all of this.
 
It's very unfriendly just to assume everyone can manage the same set up as you and no-one needs the assistance of aids such as printable charts, or text, or targets or whatever they may choose to assist with focusing.

for longer distances an outdoor area with a brick wall in view, large building, shopping center etc can make for a good impromptu subject on which to judge focus
 
Back
Top