Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > P & S and depth-of-field

Reply
Thread Tools

P & S and depth-of-field

 
 
Paul Furman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2007
Glenn Ramsen wrote:

> psssst.....
>
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2271/...fb8fa792_o.jpg
>
> The framed area in focus is about 12x15 inches or so in size. The background is
> only about 1 foot away from the flowers.


Yes, it's quite possible to get that look with closeups like this. No
problem.

> Don't show this to the DSLR people...[blah blah blah]


Hmm, does anyone recognize this writing style? The guy who changes his
name a few times a day...

> ...If they stop down their lens enough to
> get a deeper DOF to get all of the main subject in focus while blurring the
> background they then have to use a tripod and such slow shutter speeds that
> their subject has to be perfectly still. Or they have to use such high ISOs that
> invariably introduce more noise.


Yes, raise the ISO for the same shutter speed, noise & DOF. There are
still options for more though, but there's no free lunch in the laws of
physics.

> These drawbacks to all DSLRS is also why they fail at
> being the best option for any type of macrophotography. They just don't have the
> kind of range needed for subjects of this nature.


DSLRs have a wider range of options.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Glenn Ramsen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2007
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:37:48 -0400, M-M <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>You could not get that effect from a P&S if you were further away. In
>fact, the only time you can get a shallow DOF with a P&S is when you
>hold the lens right up to the subject.


First the DSLR people claim that you can only get that effect from a great
distance while only using telephoto, now you claim that it can only be done when
someone is right on top of a subject. Keep trying. You'll figure it out,
eventually. (Clue: all DSLR fans keep spewing nothing but misinformation and
lies to support that monkey on their back.)

You might want to try learning some basics about photography and optics, but
more importantly learning how to use their properties to compose your
photographs in all 3 dimension. Get some experience before you start making your
outlandish and contradictory claims and beliefs used to support your buying
habits.

There should be a way to keep posts from being seen by the DSLR trolls. Isn't
there a newsgroup just for them? How come they don't stay where they belong? I
knew this would happen, when you show them concrete proof that contradicts
everything that they've ever said and believe. Happens every time that anyone
does this. Then it takes another 2 days trying to babysit their mental and
emotional wounds from their nasty brush with reality. Eventually the wounds heal
over and they get back to their land of self-induced delusions and make-believe.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Paul Furman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2007
Glenn Ramsen wrote:

> M-M wrote:
>
>>You could not get that effect from a P&S if you were further away. In
>>fact, the only time you can get a shallow DOF with a P&S is when you
>>hold the lens right up to the subject.

>
> First the DSLR people claim that you can only get that effect from a great
> distance while only using telephoto, now you claim that it can only be done when
> someone is right on top of a subject.


Both contribute to the effect, close focus has more impact.


> There should be a way to keep posts from being seen by the DSLR trolls. Isn't
> there a newsgroup just for them? How come they don't stay where they belong?


These are direct answers to the question posed.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Fishermac
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2007
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:48:57 GMT, Glenn Ramsen <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:37:48 -0400, M-M <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>You could not get that effect from a P&S if you were further away. In
>>fact, the only time you can get a shallow DOF with a P&S is when you
>>hold the lens right up to the subject.

>
>First the DSLR people claim that you can only get that effect from a great
>distance while only using telephoto, now you claim that it can only be done when
>someone is right on top of a subject. Keep trying. You'll figure it out,
>eventually. (Clue: all DSLR fans keep spewing nothing but misinformation and
>lies to support that monkey on their back.)
>
>You might want to try learning some basics about photography and optics, but
>more importantly learning how to use their properties to compose your
>photographs in all 3 dimension. Get some experience before you start making your
>outlandish and contradictory claims and beliefs used to support your buying
>habits.
>
>There should be a way to keep posts from being seen by the DSLR trolls. Isn't
>there a newsgroup just for them? How come they don't stay where they belong? I
>knew this would happen, when you show them concrete proof that contradicts
>everything that they've ever said and believe. Happens every time that anyone
>does this. Then it takes another 2 days trying to babysit their mental and
>emotional wounds from their nasty brush with reality. Eventually the wounds heal
>over and they get back to their land of self-induced delusions and make-believe.



All P&S fans like you are just jealous because us DSLR owners are rich
enough to afford the cameras and lenses and we also can afford P&S's
as well which we keep in our kit bag so we are covered for all
situations where as you poor mates of X man cannot so we dont care
what you have to say
 
Reply With Quote
 
Glenn Ramsen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-11-2007
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:30:23 GMT, Paul Furman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Glenn Ramsen wrote:
>
>> M-M wrote:
>>
>>>You could not get that effect from a P&S if you were further away. In
>>>fact, the only time you can get a shallow DOF with a P&S is when you
>>>hold the lens right up to the subject.

>>
>> First the DSLR people claim that you can only get that effect from a great
>> distance while only using telephoto, now you claim that it can only be done when
>> someone is right on top of a subject.

>
>Both contribute to the effect, close focus has more impact.
>


Odd that I get the same capability using zoom, in fact it even increases the
shallow DOF effect even more. If I had stacked a tele-extender with a +1 diopter
close-up lens and moved back a few feet it would have blurred the background
even more than this, but then I would be hitting the same lousy limitations that
DSLR owners have, trying to get all of the flower in focus.This photo was taken
from about 5 feet away from the flower. I guess in your mind that is "close" and
it's how you justify your incessant misinformation.

You fools just never skip a beat in continually contradicting yourselves in
justifying your uneducated and inexperienced camera purchases, do you.

Trying to correct all the misinformation and lies that are continually being
spewed by the totally asinine and ignorant DSLR owners in this news-group could
turn into a life-time job.

 
Reply With Quote
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-09-2007
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:29:56 GMT, Glenn Ramsen <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote in <(E-Mail Removed)>:

>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:30:23 GMT, Paul Furman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Glenn Ramsen wrote:
>>
>>> M-M wrote:
>>>
>>>>You could not get that effect from a P&S if you were further away. In
>>>>fact, the only time you can get a shallow DOF with a P&S is when you
>>>>hold the lens right up to the subject.
>>>
>>> First the DSLR people claim that you can only get that effect from a great
>>> distance while only using telephoto, now you claim that it can only be done when
>>> someone is right on top of a subject.

>>
>>Both contribute to the effect, close focus has more impact.

>
>Odd that I get the same capability using zoom, in fact it even increases the
>shallow DOF effect even more. ...


<http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm>

Larger apertures (smaller F-stop number) and closer focal distances
produce a shallower depth of field.

....

Even though telephoto lenses appear to create a much shallower depth
of field, this is mainly because they are often used to make the
subject appear bigger when one is unable to get closer. If the
subject occupies the same fraction of the viewfinder (constant
magnification) for both a wide angle and a telephoto lens, the total
depth of field is virtually constant with focal length!

....

This exposes a limitation of the traditional DoF concept: it only
accounts for the total DoF and not its distribution around the focal
plane, even though both may contribute to the perception of
sharpness. A wide angle lens provides a more gradually fading DoF
behind the focal plane than in front, which is important for
traditional landscape photographs.

On the other hand, when standing in the same place and focusing on a
subject at the same distance, a longer focal length lens will have a
shallower depth of field (even though the pictures will show
something entirely different). This is more representative of
everyday use, but is an effect due to higher magnification, not focal
length. Longer focal lengths also appear to have a shallow depth of
field because they flatten perspective. This renders a background
much larger relative to the foreground-- even if no more detail is
resolved. Depth of field also appears shallower for SLR cameras than
for compact digital cameras, because SLR cameras require a longer
focal length to achieve the same field of view.

Hope that helps.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-09-2007
>> M-M wrote:
>>
>>>You could not get that effect from a P&S if you were further away. In
>>>fact, the only time you can get a shallow DOF with a P&S is when you
>>>hold the lens right up to the subject.


Depends on what you mean by "shallow".

With the Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (using the DoF calculator at
<http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm>):

Aperture: f/2.8
Focal length: 15 mm (90 mm equiv 35 mm, ideal for portraiture)
Focus distance: 2.5 m (8.2 ft)

Close focus distance: 2.149 m (7.0 ft)
Far focus distance: 2.988 m (9.8 ft)
Total Depth of Field: 0.839 m (2.75 ft)

I personally find this very usable. YMMV.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 
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
if and and vs if and,and titi VHDL 4 03-11-2007 05:23 AM



Advertisments