Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > canon G3/G5 depth-of-field compared to Film SLR

Reply
Thread Tools

canon G3/G5 depth-of-field compared to Film SLR

 
 
Fred Kruse
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2003
> > Are there any tricks to decrease the depth of field in G cameras? For
> > example if I want to blur the background, does manual focusing nearer than
> > the main foreground object help?
> >

>
> Nope. You can't rewrite the laws of physics


Don't listen to this guy, I have the camera. There is a setting on the top of
the camera called PORTRAIT MODE that will do exactly what you want without
having to know how to set anything. It is called portrait mode, because if
you take a portrait shot of someone's head, it will focus on that, and keep
everything in the background out of focus. It works very well. Any idiot
can take amazing photographs with this camera without having to know how to do
anything. But the experienced can also use manual mode and do all the
adjustments themselves.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert A. Barr
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2003
Todd Walker wrote:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Not.for.@harvest
> says...
> > >
> > > As others have said, you are completely wrong. Please try to refrain
> > > from answering questions when you have no idea what you are talking
> > > about. This group is about ACCURATE information.

> >
> > Do you own a G3?

>
> I own a G1 and have previously owned a G2, which has the same sensor and
> lens as the G3.


This gets a little tiring.

First of all, a G1 isn't a G3. Neither is a G2. All 3 have different
lenses. If you have any detailed questions, you can ask here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...php?BoardID=33

It's populated by people who actually OWN the product in question.

Now: My response of 'yep' was a little too absolute. No doubt about that,
but if you need to see a little DOF from a stock G3, try these.

Here's a quick shot I took for an upcoming eBay auction:

http://home.att.net/~robert.barr/l1s.JPG

Now, we can adjust the angle and aperture, like this:

http://home.att.net/~robert.barr/ex1.JPG

We can go a little further, with a longer focal length:

http://home.att.net/~robert.barr/ex2.JPG

Does that show a rather narrow DOF? Here's something a little easier to
measure:

http://home.att.net/~robert.barr/ex3.JPG

I'm guessing about 4 centimeters.

How does this stack up against your buddy's comparison shots? What does
this prove? Not much. The OP was inquiring about portraiture. OK, here's
a portrait:

http://home.att.net/~robert.barr/Sally.jpg

Now, I'll agree with you that your expensive toys can certainly generate
shallower DOF for the purpose the OP was asking about; but qualify that with
his statement that he'd rather not cough up the money for the DSLR if he
could avoid it.

Some of us don't have your budget, but you people carry on as if the G3 has
no capability for generating a shallow DOF. WTF? That's not what he
asked. The OP, like some of us out here, is apparently on a budget. For
his purposes, the G3 (and others) could serve nearly as well as your
high-dollar setups.

It's risky to get snotty about the capabilities of your gear, because some
vagrant with a wine bottle, an old Brownie and pocket change can show up and
put your work to shame.

And the best you can come up with are citations from some magazine, or a
comparison from entirely different cameras? Come on. At least put your
expensive gear to work and show us what you're basing your arrogance on.

You folks carry on as if my response were somehow irresponsible, or
uninformed. I agree that it was too absolute. I should have said 'more or
less' instead of 'yep'. But it's at least highbrow, if not plain
irresponsible, of you (as a group) to suggest that his choice of the G3
isn't even in the proper league.









 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Todd Walker
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2003
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Not.for.@harvest
says...
> Now, I'll agree with you that your expensive toys can certainly generate
> shallower DOF for the purpose the OP was asking about; but qualify that with
> his statement that he'd rather not cough up the money for the DSLR if he
> could avoid it.


My God, what is in the water making people so damn snippy? He asked if a
G3 could give as shallow DOF as a film SLR at f/2.0 to 3.0 and I told
him the truth -- no it can't.

> Some of us don't have your budget, but you people carry on as if the G3 has
> no capability for generating a shallow DOF. WTF? That's not what he
> asked. The OP, like some of us out here, is apparently on a budget. For
> his purposes, the G3 (and others) could serve nearly as well as your
> high-dollar setups.


Please show me where I said that the G3 couldn't generate shallow enough
DOF to take a good quality portrait. Didn't happen. I answered his
question and even took the time to do a simple test to show the
approximate difference between a G series Canon and the 10D. I never
intended for it to be taken as scientific proof of anything. I was just
trying to help the guy out.

> It's risky to get snotty about the capabilities of your gear, because some
> vagrant with a wine bottle, an old Brownie and pocket change can show up and
> put your work to shame.


Show me where I got snotty about anything. Please.

> And the best you can come up with are citations from some magazine, or a
> comparison from entirely different cameras? Come on. At least put your
> expensive gear to work and show us what you're basing your arrogance on.


I never cited any magazine. What are you talking about? When did I
display any arrogance at all? By mentioning I own a 10D? Well guess what
-- I paid for my 10D with money earned by TAKING PICTURES. I bought an
E20 a little over a year ago, did portrait work with it on the side, and
saved enough money to buy the 10D. I am still doing portrait work and
making money to feed my photography gadget habit. But really what
business is it of yours what I do with my equipment or how I obtained
it?

> You folks carry on as if my response were somehow irresponsible, or
> uninformed. I agree that it was too absolute. I should have said 'more or
> less' instead of 'yep'. But it's at least highbrow, if not plain
> irresponsible, of you (as a group) to suggest that his choice of the G3
> isn't even in the proper league.


Are you just making stuff up? Please show me where anyone said that the
G3 isn't in the proper league for taking good portraits. I have looked
at all of the messages in this thread and I can't find it.

I'm not sure what your problem is but you are getting worked up over
statements that weren't even made. Perhaps you are reacting to the
"attitude" that YOU perceive those who have expensive equipment to have
rather than to what actually was said. Perhaps you have some personal
insecurities that you need to deal with.

--
________________________________
Todd Walker
http://www.toddwalker.net
Canon 10D:
http://www.toddwalker.net/canon10d
My Digital Photography Weblog:
http://www.toddwalker.net/dpblog.htm
_________________________________
 
Reply With Quote
 
Todd Walker
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2003
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Not.for.@harvest
says...
> First of all, a G1 isn't a G3. Neither is a G2. All 3 have different
> lenses. If you have any detailed questions, you can ask here:
>
> http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...php?BoardID=33
>
> It's populated by people who actually OWN the product in question.
>


Oh BTW, I stand corrected -- I in fact forgot that the G3 has a 4x
f/2.0-3.0 lens whereas the G1 and G2 share the same 3x f/2.0-2.5 lens.

As for actually owning the product in question, as I said, I have owned
a G1 and a G2. As for the G3 and G5, although they do use a different
lens, the difference isn't significant enough to make their DOF
performance that much different than the G1/G2. The slighly longer zoom
will reduce the DOF slightly at max tele, but the difference is
negligible.

--
________________________________
Todd Walker
http://www.toddwalker.net
Canon 10D:
http://www.toddwalker.net/canon10d
My Digital Photography Weblog:
http://www.toddwalker.net/dpblog.htm
_________________________________
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Martindale
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2003
Fred Kruse <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> > Are there any tricks to decrease the depth of field in G cameras? For
>> > example if I want to blur the background, does manual focusing nearer than
>> > the main foreground object help?
>> >

>>
>> Nope. You can't rewrite the laws of physics

>
>Don't listen to this guy, I have the camera. There is a setting on the top of
>the camera called PORTRAIT MODE that will do exactly what you want without
>having to know how to set anything. It is called portrait mode, because if
>you take a portrait shot of someone's head, it will focus on that, and keep
>everything in the background out of focus.


This mode gives you the minimum depth of field the camera can provide,
but it's still large compared to what a 35 mm camera and lens can do.
If he's used to the latter, he'll probably be disappointed by the G
series, or any other small-sensor digicam.

Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2003

"Dave Martindale" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Fred Kruse <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> >> > Are there any tricks to decrease the depth of field in G cameras? For
> >> > example if I want to blur the background, does manual focusing nearer

than
> >> > the main foreground object help?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Nope. You can't rewrite the laws of physics

> >
> >Don't listen to this guy, I have the camera. There is a setting on the

top of
> >the camera called PORTRAIT MODE that will do exactly what you want

without
> >having to know how to set anything. It is called portrait mode,

because if
> >you take a portrait shot of someone's head, it will focus on that, and

keep
> >everything in the background out of focus.


You don't need any stupid magic mode that does you favors, just use aperture
priority mode.

> This mode gives you the minimum depth of field the camera can provide,
> but it's still large compared to what a 35 mm camera and lens can do.
> If he's used to the latter, he'll probably be disappointed by the G
> series, or any other small-sensor digicam.


Numerically, you are, of course, exactly correct. But the DOF of a 135mm
35mm lens at f/22 at 10 ft is plus-or-minus a foot or so, and if you use the
G5 at full telephoto wide open, that's the DOF you'll get; the background
will be blurred quite nicely. The background won't be completely nuked the
way a 135mm f/2.0 lens at f/2.0 on a 35mm camera would, but in that case at
10 feet, you'd have a DOF of about 2 inches, and have serious trouble
getting the plane of focus on your subject...

I've been shooting 645 for the last year and a half, and I have very little
sympathy for the too much DOF complaint, since I have to shoot at f/8 or
smaller to even have half a chance of getting enough of my subject in
focus...

One thing that I've noticed, though, is that DOF has become radically
_shallower_ in the digital age. The problem is that one looks at one's
images at 100% on the screen, which is like looking at a 20x26" print with a
loupe...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



 
Reply With Quote
 
Christian
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2003
Tom Thackrey wrote:

>
> On 4-Nov-2003, Christian <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Robert A. Barr wrote:
>>
>> >> One inportant feature is the
>> >> shallow depth of field I can get with large apertures for portraits.
>> >> G3 spec says that it has max aperture of 2.0-3.0. Am I going to get
>> >> the same shallow depth compared to the film SLR at 2.0-3.0 aperture?
>> >
>> > Yep.

>>
>> NO NO NO NO NO!!! This is COMPLETELY wrong!!! The much smaller sensor
>> size
>> means you have A LOT more DOF for the same aperture. I saw a comparison
>> in
>> a magazine recently between an APS-sized sensor DSLR and a consumer
>> digicam. The DSLR at f/32 had SLIGHTLY LESS DOF than the digicam at f/2.
>> So you are not going to get anywhere near the same shallow DOF with a G3
>> that you would get with a DSLR, let alone a 35mm film camera.

>
> Actually, DOF is related to aperture AND focal length. The reason that
> DCams have relatively large DOF is they have relatively short focal length
> lenses. A 50mm lens at f/2 will have the same DOF on a DCam as a 35mm
> camera. It will probably have a much smaller field of view (depending on
> the size of the sensor.)
> If you want shallow DOF with your digital camera, select a large focal
> length (i.e. zoom in) and a small aperture number.


DOF is NOT related to focal length at all. It is related to subject size
(which just happens to often correlate with focal length). If you take a
photo of the same subject at two different focal lengths but make sure the
subject is the same size in both photos then the DOF will be the same, even
though the focal lengths are different:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml


 
Reply With Quote
 
Christian
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2003
Todd Walker wrote:
>> And the best you can come up with are citations from some magazine, or a
>> comparison from entirely different cameras? Come on. At least put your
>> expensive gear to work and show us what you're basing your arrogance on.

>
> I never cited any magazine. What are you talking about? When did I
> display any arrogance at all? By mentioning I own a 10D? Well guess what
> -- I paid for my 10D with money earned by TAKING PICTURES. I bought an
> E20 a little over a year ago, did portrait work with it on the side, and
> saved enough money to buy the 10D. I am still doing portrait work and
> making money to feed my photography gadget habit. But really what
> business is it of yours what I do with my equipment or how I obtained
> it?


I'm the one who came up with the citation from the magazine so he's just got
us confused. In any case, I own a 35mm SLR, a 10D and a G3 and the G3 has
MUCH MUCH MUCH more DOF than the other two, even wide open.

I wish I could tell you which magazine it was but I can't because I bought
two magazines at once and have been reading them in parallel. In any case,
it was either Pro Digital Photo (or something similar, it's a new US
magazine) or Australian Photoreview that had the comparison.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert A. Barr
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2003
>
> As others have said, you are completely wrong. Please try to refrain
> from answering questions when you have no idea what you are talking
> about. This group is about ACCURATE information.
>


.... and as for playing Hall Monitor: **** up a rope.

Good luck in any attempt at controlling me in particular, or Usenet in
general. As with any other user, civility is optional. Go ahead and
forward ANY complaints you have to my ISP.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert A. Barr
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2003
Andy wrote:

> "Robert A. Barr" <Not.for.@harvest> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > >
> > > As others have said, you are completely wrong. Please try to refrain
> > > from answering questions when you have no idea what you are talking
> > > about. This group is about ACCURATE information.

> >
> > Do you own a G3?
> >

>
> You are an idiot.


.... and you don't rate a constructive reply. For that matter, you don't
rate -- period.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ZLR lens compared to SLR mianileng@yahoo.com Digital Photography 9 09-05-2006 04:11 AM
Film SLR Flash unit on a Digital SLR - Possible? alex Digital Photography 12 06-24-2006 09:51 PM
Small viewfinder compared to film slr geez Digital Photography 4 06-08-2006 08:37 PM
After having 8mm film reels digitally archived, film looks very grainy/ filled with static. Is this digital-looking noise normal? + more 8mm film questions Phil Edry Digital Photography 11 10-10-2004 11:57 PM
Canon wins Award for Best Professional D-SLR, best Prosumer D-SLR (EOS 1Ds, EOS-10D) George Preddy Digital Photography 3 05-24-2004 03:29 AM



Advertisments