«

.... i've recently 'upgraded' from an Olympus E10 to a Canon300d and
now find that this 'out of focus' background ' restricted depth of
field to be annoying....

With a pocket digital or 'point and shootcompact ' the smaller chip
in the camera gives a far deeper depth of field.. To me this is what
photography is all about... to capture that scene/ moment/
person/event AS My EYES SEE It... NOT to have the foregound or subject
in focus and the background blurry... (I can blur the background in
Photoshop - BUT I can't bring it back to its original 'real state')..

The Olympus E10 had a slightly larger chip than 'norm' and so I got
the best of both worlds - a sharp / full depth picture of superb
quality from a camera that was for all intents and purposes a SLR...

The Canon 300D can take super pictures but you can't always guarantee
a true depth of field (depends on available light / shutter speed and
type of lens being used...) - it's more frustrating to me than
enjoyable knowing that some pics just aren't what you really wanted...

"advid" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> ... i've recently 'upgraded' from an Olympus E10 to a Canon300d and
> now find that this 'out of focus' background ' restricted depth of
> field to be annoying....
>
> With a pocket digital or 'point and shootcompact ' the smaller chip
> in the camera gives a far deeper depth of field.. To me this is what
> photography is all about... to capture that scene/ moment/
> person/event AS My EYES SEE It... NOT to have the foregound or subject
> in focus and the background blurry... (I can blur the background in
> Photoshop - BUT I can't bring it back to its original 'real state')..
>
> The Olympus E10 had a slightly larger chip than 'norm' and so I got
> the best of both worlds - a sharp / full depth picture of superb
> quality from a camera that was for all intents and purposes a SLR...
>
> The Canon 300D can take super pictures but you can't always guarantee
> a true depth of field (depends on available light / shutter speed and
> type of lens being used...) - it's more frustrating to me than
> enjoyable knowing that some pics just aren't what you really wanted...

Can't you just use a smaller aperture to increase DoF ? And a higher ISO
setting if you don't have enough available light ?

Surely the D300 should give you MORE control over DoF.

"advid" <> wrote in message
news: om...

> The Canon 300D can take super pictures but you can't always guarantee
> a true depth of field (depends on available light / shutter speed and
> type of lens being used...) - it's more frustrating to me than
> enjoyable knowing that some pics just aren't what you really wanted...

With respect, the failing lies not in the camera but in your use of it.
Learn to control depth of field with selection of the right aperture and
your frustration will just melt away.

"advid" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> ... i've recently 'upgraded' from an Olympus E10 to a Canon300d and
> now find that this 'out of focus' background ' restricted depth of
> field to be annoying....
>
> With a pocket digital or 'point and shootcompact ' the smaller chip
> in the camera gives a far deeper depth of field.. To me this is what
> photography is all about... to capture that scene/ moment/
> person/event AS My EYES SEE It... NOT to have the foregound or subject
> in focus and the background blurry... (I can blur the background in
> Photoshop - BUT I can't bring it back to its original 'real state')..
Some people find the greater depth of field in a compact camera annoying.
There are many times that you DO want to blur the background so that it
doesnt draw attention away from the subject. This is sometimes hard to do
in a compact camera. Sure you can do it in software, but that's extra work,
and some of us hate mucking around with post-processing.
>
> The Olympus E10 had a slightly larger chip than 'norm' and so I got
> the best of both worlds - a sharp / full depth picture of superb
> quality from a camera that was for all intents and purposes a SLR...
>
> The Canon 300D can take super pictures but you can't always guarantee
> a true depth of field (depends on available light / shutter speed and
> type of lens being used...) - it's more frustrating to me than
> enjoyable knowing that some pics just aren't what you really wanted...
Simple, instead of running it on full auto, use aperture priority. If you
want to have more depth of field, dial up a smaller aperture - F11 or more.
If you want to blur the background, dial up a larger aperture - F5.6 or
less. If you don't understand aperture, depth of field, and the like, then
maybe an SLR camera isn't the right choice for you.

Like Mick said you need to learn.

ex. out of focus background might be known as "bokeh".


"advid" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> ... i've recently 'upgraded' from an Olympus E10 to a Canon300d and
> now find that this 'out of focus' background ' restricted depth of
> field to be annoying....
>
> With a pocket digital or 'point and shootcompact ' the smaller chip
> in the camera gives a far deeper depth of field.. To me this is what
> photography is all about... to capture that scene/ moment/
> person/event AS My EYES SEE It... NOT to have the foregound or subject
> in focus and the background blurry... (I can blur the background in
> Photoshop - BUT I can't bring it back to its original 'real state')..
>
> The Olympus E10 had a slightly larger chip than 'norm' and so I got
> the best of both worlds - a sharp / full depth picture of superb
> quality from a camera that was for all intents and purposes a SLR...
>
> The Canon 300D can take super pictures but you can't always guarantee
> a true depth of field (depends on available light / shutter speed and
> type of lens being used...) - it's more frustrating to me than
> enjoyable knowing that some pics just aren't what you really wanted...

...... thanks for your comments BUT ---- I do understand exposure/depth of
field/shutter speed settings....

In fact I mainly shoot on Full Manual "M" on the 300d because I can set both
depth of field and exposure times...

If you go out with the wrong lens on and want to take a shot there sometimes
isn't enough light (or time) available (I'm in England - where we get a lot
of dark gloomy days for a lot of the time - even in summer .... example 1
: a bird shot - you need a fast shutter to stop the bird movement (250th
sec)- zoom in to 200/300 to get close - NOT enough light - slow down the
shutter speed - camera shake - blurry bird or total blurry picture... OR
usually - BIRD GONE - never to be seen again.....
Next - move on - a beautiful landscape scene - want full depth of field -
put Aperture to f11 or hopefully greater - again - not enough light - oops -
no tripod - oh well - I'll do my best on this old farm gate....

To make me even more frustrated - I've just brought the wife a little
Kyocera M410 (4 mp -10x zoom - 3.5 fps ) it focuses and locks on to
anything in an instant.. superb exposures - spot on colour - in fact it puts
my SLR pics to shame - even after tweaking in Photoshop . PLUS it gives a
FULL DEPTH OF FIELD that can be blurred ' boked' - if I want.... If not then
I get a fully exposed landscape or bird pic that looks good straight out of
the camera.... That to me is REAL photography - 'capturing the moment'....

Don't get me too wrong - I love tweaking in Photoshop and getting my prints
looking good - it's just that I think all this lens swapping/tripod lugging/
camera back packing is not to me what photography is all about....

I want a camera that does it all - the Olympus E10 was good (but not enough
zoom) the Canon 300d takes good pics but you need an arsenal of 'extras' to
make it work - the little Kyocera 'almost' fits in a pocket and is ready to
go in an instant - AND the wife loves it......and she now takes better
pictures than me

......can't get any better than that - a happy wife - interested in
photography ? -


....... or can you.... ??



"YoYo" < your.business.com> wrote in message
news:...
> Like Mick said you need to learn.
>
> ex. out of focus background might be known as "bokeh".
>
>
> "advid" <> wrote in message
> news: om...
> > ... i've recently 'upgraded' from an Olympus E10 to a Canon300d and
> > now find that this 'out of focus' background ' restricted depth of
> > field to be annoying....
> >
> > With a pocket digital or 'point and shootcompact ' the smaller chip
> > in the camera gives a far deeper depth of field.. To me this is what
> > photography is all about... to capture that scene/ moment/
> > person/event AS My EYES SEE It... NOT to have the foregound or subject
> > in focus and the background blurry... (I can blur the background in
> > Photoshop - BUT I can't bring it back to its original 'real state')..
> >
> > The Olympus E10 had a slightly larger chip than 'norm' and so I got
> > the best of both worlds - a sharp / full depth picture of superb
> > quality from a camera that was for all intents and purposes a SLR...
> >
> > The Canon 300D can take super pictures but you can't always guarantee
> > a true depth of field (depends on available light / shutter speed and
> > type of lens being used...) - it's more frustrating to me than
> > enjoyable knowing that some pics just aren't what you really wanted...
>
>

"advid" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> ... i've recently 'upgraded' from an Olympus E10 to a Canon300d and
> now find that this 'out of focus' background ' restricted depth of
> field to be annoying....
>
> With a pocket digital or 'point and shootcompact ' the smaller chip
> in the camera gives a far deeper depth of field.. To me this is what
> photography is all about... to capture that scene/ moment/
> person/event AS My EYES SEE It... NOT to have the foregound or subject
> in focus and the background blurry... (I can blur the background in
> Photoshop - BUT I can't bring it back to its original 'real state')..
>
> The Olympus E10 had a slightly larger chip than 'norm' and so I got
> the best of both worlds - a sharp / full depth picture of superb
> quality from a camera that was for all intents and purposes a SLR...
>
> The Canon 300D can take super pictures but you can't always guarantee
> a true depth of field (depends on available light / shutter speed and
> type of lens being used...) - it's more frustrating to me than
> enjoyable knowing that some pics just aren't what you really wanted...


Larger sensor = less depth of field, that's just the way it is. Larger
sensor also means higher quality pics, particularly at higher ISO (less
noise). Use Av mode and choose a smaller aperture (larger f-stop).
Persoanlly, I don't find it frustrating - just the opposite - most
photographers like the ability to blur the background particularly with
portraits (so you don't draw attention away from the subject).

Mark

On 30 Jun 2004 02:25:36 -0700, (advid) wrote:

>... i've recently 'upgraded' from an Olympus E10 to a Canon300d and
>now find that this 'out of focus' background ' restricted depth of
>field to be annoying....
>
>With a pocket digital or 'point and shootcompact ' the smaller chip
>in the camera gives a far deeper depth of field.. To me this is what
>photography is all about... to capture that scene/ moment/
>person/event AS My EYES SEE It... NOT to have the foregound or subject
>in focus and the background blurry... (I can blur the background in
>Photoshop - BUT I can't bring it back to its original 'real state')..
>
>The Olympus E10 had a slightly larger chip than 'norm' and so I got
>the best of both worlds - a sharp / full depth picture of superb
>quality from a camera that was for all intents and purposes a SLR...
>
>The Canon 300D can take super pictures but you can't always guarantee
>a true depth of field (depends on available light / shutter speed and
>type of lens being used...) - it's more frustrating to me than
>enjoyable knowing that some pics just aren't what you really wanted...

Well, you have 2 choices:

1. Trade back down to a P&S.

2. Spend lots of time visiting and studying the sites of Real Photographers and
see how they use narrow DOF to emphasise and highlight what they want the
viewers to focus their attention on.

Complaining about "poor" DOF is like complaining that a Porche is too hard to
handle and you preferred the old Ford. Perfectly OK if your ambition is simply
to get from A to B in a dull but reliable way, or in the case of photography, if
you simply want to record a scene in a dull but reliable way.

...... Yes ----- I think you're probably right....... DULL but RELIABLE....
that just about sums up my photography.... BUT that's exactly what I'm
trying to capture..... the world as I SEE IT --- I take pics of just about
everything/everyone/places/faces/abstract/macro etc ----- I want to look at
these pics later (days/weeks/months/years later) and say - Yeah - that's how
I remember it....

NOT -

..... ''what a lovely bokeh you got one that one mate--- you must be a 'real
photographer...!

OR...

.......''couldn't you have increased your depth of field on that one mate-
would have been a much better pic...''

NO

...... i'll stick to dull and reliable - no matter what camera I use from now
on......




> Well, you have 2 choices:
>
> 1. Trade back down to a P&S.
>
> 2. Spend lots of time visiting and studying the sites of Real
Photographers and
> see how they use narrow DOF to emphasise and highlight what they want the
> viewers to focus their attention on.
>
> Complaining about "poor" DOF is like complaining that a Porche is too hard
to
> handle and you preferred the old Ford. Perfectly OK if your ambition is
simply
> to get from A to B in a dull but reliable way, or in the case of
photography, if
> you simply want to record a scene in a dull but reliable way.
>
>

"Advid" <> wrote in message
news:...
> ..... thanks for your comments BUT ---- I do understand exposure/depth of
> field/shutter speed settings....
>
> In fact I mainly shoot on Full Manual "M" on the 300d because I can set
both
> depth of field and exposure times...
>
> If you go out with the wrong lens on and want to take a shot there
sometimes
> isn't enough light (or time) available (I'm in England - where we get a
lot
> of dark gloomy days for a lot of the time - even in summer .... example
1
> : a bird shot - you need a fast shutter to stop the bird movement (250th
> sec)- zoom in to 200/300 to get close - NOT enough light - slow down the
> shutter speed - camera shake - blurry bird or total blurry picture... OR
> usually - BIRD GONE - never to be seen again.....
> Next - move on - a beautiful landscape scene - want full depth of field -
> put Aperture to f11 or hopefully greater - again - not enough light -
oops -
> no tripod - oh well - I'll do my best on this old farm gate....
>
> To make me even more frustrated - I've just brought the wife a little
> Kyocera M410 (4 mp -10x zoom - 3.5 fps ) it focuses and locks on to
> anything in an instant.. superb exposures - spot on colour - in fact it
puts
> my SLR pics to shame - even after tweaking in Photoshop . PLUS it gives a
> FULL DEPTH OF FIELD that can be blurred ' boked' - if I want.... If not
then
> I get a fully exposed landscape or bird pic that looks good straight out
of
> the camera.... That to me is REAL photography - 'capturing the moment'....
>
> Don't get me too wrong - I love tweaking in Photoshop and getting my
prints
> looking good - it's just that I think all this lens swapping/tripod
lugging/
> camera back packing is not to me what photography is all about....
>
> I want a camera that does it all - the Olympus E10 was good (but not
enough
> zoom) the Canon 300d takes good pics but you need an arsenal of 'extras'
to
> make it work - the little Kyocera 'almost' fits in a pocket and is ready
to
> go in an instant - AND the wife loves it......and she now takes better
> pictures than me
>
> .....can't get any better than that - a happy wife - interested in
> photography ? -
>
>
> ...... or can you.... ??
>
>

Well it sounds like you'd be happy going back to a portable digicam. Check
out the 8x to 10x zoom cams. Personally, I've found just the opposite in
regards to image quality - even the D30 is way better than any compact I've
used.

Mark