P & S and depth-of-field

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Jeff Layman, Oct 10, 2007.

  1. Jeff Layman

    Jeff Layman Guest

    Some time ago in this group I asked about depth-of-field with a compact
    digital camera. I was told that because of the small sensor size, this
    isn't really a problem compared to 35 mm film cameras.

    A friend using her new Fuji (A610, I think) asked me how to get shots with
    the background blurred and only the object of interest (eg a flower) in
    focus. I could be much mistaken, but I guess that this would be almost
    impossible. I can't see how to do it with my Caplio R6 either. Maybe using
    the lens in macro telephoto rather than wide angle would help, but even then
    I doubt you'd get the same effect as using a 35 mm film camera with a 50 mm
    macro lens set at f2.

    It also set me wondering exactly how much the aperture of a P & S camera
    changes when the lens specification is stated to be eg "f3 wide angle to
    f5.3 telephoto".

    Are there any P & S cameras where you can control the aperture over the sort
    of range you'd expect with a 35 mm camera and standard 50 mm lens (about
    f1.6 - 22), and so change depth-of-field?

    --
    Jeff
    (cut "thetape" to reply)
     
    Jeff Layman, Oct 10, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jeff Layman

    Alex Monro Guest

    Jeff Layman wrote:

    > Some time ago in this group I asked about depth-of-field with a
    > compact
    > digital camera. I was told that because of the small sensor size,
    > this isn't really a problem compared to 35 mm film cameras.
    >

    It generally isn't a problem if you want lots of DoF, however,
    restricting DoF, e.g. blurring distracting backgrounds, can be more
    difficult.

    > A friend using her new Fuji (A610, I think) asked me how to get shots
    > with the background blurred and only the object of interest (eg a
    > flower) in
    > focus. I could be much mistaken, but I guess that this would be
    > almost
    > impossible. I can't see how to do it with my Caplio R6 either. Maybe
    > using the lens in macro telephoto rather than wide angle would help,
    > but even then I doubt you'd get the same effect as using a 35 mm film
    > camera with a 50 mm macro lens set at f2.
    >

    Using tele macro is most likely to restrict DoF. For a detailed
    tutorial see here:

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

    If you use the on-line DoF calculator, remember it needs the actual
    focal length, typically arond 6-20mm for a 3x zoom compact, not the
    35mm equivalent.

    > It also set me wondering exactly how much the aperture of a P & S
    > camera changes when the lens specification is stated to be eg "f3 wide
    > angle to f5.3 telephoto".
    >

    Set the camera to manual mode and see what the largest aperture you
    can select is for various zoom settings. There's no fixed rule for
    how maximum aperture varies with zoom - it depends on each individual
    lens design.

    > Are there any P & S cameras where you can control the aperture over
    > the sort of range you'd expect with a 35 mm camera and standard 50 mm
    > lens (about f1.6 - 22), and so change depth-of-field?
    >

    I don't know of any P&S that has wider than f/2.4 max aperture, and
    the minimum is usually about f/8, due to diffraction considerations
    with the small sensor. If you need to control DoF, you need a larger
    sensor, which means a DSLR, or the Sony R1 - a fixed lens ultrazoom
    with an APS-C sized sensor.
     
    Alex Monro, Oct 10, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:09:09 +0100, Alex Monro
    <> wrote:

    >I don't know of any P&S that has wider than f/2.4 max aperture, and
    >the minimum is usually about f/8, due to diffraction considerations
    >with the small sensor. If you need to control DoF, you need a larger
    >sensor, which means a DSLR, or the Sony R1 - a fixed lens ultrazoom
    >with an APS-C sized sensor.


    If you don't know of any P&S cameras that have a max aperture wider than f/2.4
    then you shouldn't be posting such misleading information. Go do your homework
    first. All of my P&S cameras are capable of f/2.4 or wider. One of my earliest
    ones from 6 years ago has an f/2.0 lens on it. That's only 0.2 away from that
    f/1.8 that DSLR owners always have an orgasm over, and they get that at only 1
    focal length, mine is an f/2.0 zoom lens. You also need to learn what
    "diffraction limited" means. If your lens is not configured to
    diffraction-limited specifications that means it performs poorer than one that
    is. Educate yourself instead of jumping up in class to show everyone what a
    total fool you are.

    DOF is a direct function of f-stop.

    F-stop = focal-length of lens / diameter of lens

    Change the diameter with the aperture control and keep the focal-length fixed,
    you change the f-stop effects. The amount of light coming through as well as how
    much is in focus, your DOF.

    Change the focal length of the lens and keep the aperture fixed, you change the
    f-stop. Increase the focal length by 2x and you change the f-stop effects by 2x.

    There are two ways to control DOF effects. Aperture and focal-length. If your
    camera has a zoom lens on it then you can get identical shallow DOF effects as a
    larger sensor camera by just zooming in and moving further away from your
    subject. If you want to stay in the same position then increase the focal-length
    of your lens using a tele-extender to accomplish the same results.

    Last but not least, you will get the most out of your P&S camera by starting to
    ignore the DSLR morons who incessantly spread misinformation and misleading lies
    to justify why they spend so much on their cameras, cameras that can't do
    anything better than most P&S cameras.

    I often wonder how these DSLR owners managed to buy cameras, learn to use a
    keyboard, and even learn how to find which buttons to press, with that lobotomy
    scar that the keep showing to everyone. I suspect they just didn't use a long
    enough ice-pick and missed severing away their most damaged parts.
     
    Taylor Dawson, Oct 10, 2007
    #3
  4. On Oct 10, 7:52 am, Taylor Dawson <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:09:09 +0100, Alex Monro
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >I don't know of any P&S that has wider than f/2.4 max aperture, and
    > >the minimum is usually about f/8, due to diffraction considerations
    > >with the small sensor. If you need to control DoF, you need a larger
    > >sensor, which means a DSLR, or the Sony R1 - a fixed lens ultrazoom
    > >with an APS-C sized sensor.

    >
    > If you don't know of any P&S cameras that have a max aperture wider than f/2.4
    > then you shouldn't be posting such misleading information. Go do your homework
    > first. All of my P&S cameras are capable of f/2.4 or wider. One of my earliest
    > ones from 6 years ago has an f/2.0 lens on it. That's only 0.2 away from that
    > f/1.8 that DSLR owners always have an orgasm over, and they get that at only 1
    > focal length, mine is an f/2.0 zoom lens. You also need to learn what
    > "diffraction limited" means. If your lens is not configured to
    > diffraction-limited specifications that means it performs poorer than one that
    > is. Educate yourself instead of jumping up in class to show everyone what a
    > total fool you are.
    >
    > DOF is a direct function of f-stop.



    Part of the problem with this discussion is that folks are lumping
    everything not a DSLR into a single catagory of compact point &
    shoot. If one looks at cameras other than DSLR there is a wide
    variety of specs. Some are very compact with small chips, others are
    larger, some same size as DSLRs with larger chips.

    DSLRs also vary in chip size. Mine has an APC sized chip, not full
    frame.

    We need to stop generalizing so much, and treat cameras as
    "individuals", at least as far as brand and model.

    Just like not all DSLRs are the same, not all non-DSLRs are the same.

    In fact, we need to consider what we mean when we talk about a DSLR.
    It merely means it uses a reflex (mirror) optical system for
    viewfinding and focusing. Yeah, it is a fair generalization that most
    DSLRs have interchangable lenses, but the term does not mean it has
    to.
     
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota, Oct 10, 2007
    #4
  5. Jeff Layman

    Jeff Layman Guest

    Alex Monro wrote:
    > Jeff Layman wrote:
    >
    >> Some time ago in this group I asked about depth-of-field with a
    >> compact
    >> digital camera. I was told that because of the small sensor size,
    >> this isn't really a problem compared to 35 mm film cameras.


    >>

    > It generally isn't a problem if you want lots of DoF, however,
    > restricting DoF, e.g. blurring distracting backgrounds, can be more
    > difficult.
    >


    >>

    > Using tele macro is most likely to restrict DoF. For a detailed
    > tutorial see here:
    >
    > http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm
    >


    Thanks for the link. Very interesting and informative. Looks like there is
    at least some possibility of restricting the DOF.

    >> Are there any P & S cameras where you can control the aperture over
    >> the sort of range you'd expect with a 35 mm camera and standard 50 mm
    >> lens (about f1.6 - 22), and so change depth-of-field?
    >>

    > I don't know of any P&S that has wider than f/2.4 max aperture, and
    > the minimum is usually about f/8, due to diffraction considerations
    > with the small sensor. If you need to control DoF, you need a larger
    > sensor, which means a DSLR, or the Sony R1 - a fixed lens ultrazoom
    > with an APS-C sized sensor.


    Probably best for her to get used to the Fuji first just to see what a
    digital camera can do. Maybe then upgrade if it is too restricting for the
    sort of photo she wants to take.

    Thanks once again for the info.

    --
    Jeff
    (cut "thetape" to reply)
     
    Jeff Layman, Oct 10, 2007
    #5
  6. Jeff Layman

    M-M Guest

    In article <>,
    Taylor Dawson <> wrote:

    > DOF is a direct function of f-stop.



    It is also a function of sensor size. A P&S camera will not give you
    out-of-focus background like a DSLR.

    Here is proof:

    http://www.mhmyers.com/temp/4500-d80.jpg

    --
    m-m
     
    M-M, Oct 10, 2007
    #6
  7. Jeff Layman

    Glenn Ramsen Guest

    On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:26:20 +0100, "Jeff Layman" <>
    wrote:

    >Alex Monro wrote:
    >> Jeff Layman wrote:
    >>
    >>> Some time ago in this group I asked about depth-of-field with a
    >>> compact
    >>> digital camera. I was told that because of the small sensor size,
    >>> this isn't really a problem compared to 35 mm film cameras.

    >
    >>>

    >> It generally isn't a problem if you want lots of DoF, however,
    >> restricting DoF, e.g. blurring distracting backgrounds, can be more
    >> difficult.
    >>

    >
    >>>

    >> Using tele macro is most likely to restrict DoF. For a detailed
    >> tutorial see here:
    >>
    >> http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm
    >>

    >
    >Thanks for the link. Very interesting and informative. Looks like there is
    >at least some possibility of restricting the DOF.
    >
    >>> Are there any P & S cameras where you can control the aperture over
    >>> the sort of range you'd expect with a 35 mm camera and standard 50 mm
    >>> lens (about f1.6 - 22), and so change depth-of-field?
    >>>

    >> I don't know of any P&S that has wider than f/2.4 max aperture, and
    >> the minimum is usually about f/8, due to diffraction considerations
    >> with the small sensor. If you need to control DoF, you need a larger
    >> sensor, which means a DSLR, or the Sony R1 - a fixed lens ultrazoom
    >> with an APS-C sized sensor.

    >
    >Probably best for her to get used to the Fuji first just to see what a
    >digital camera can do. Maybe then upgrade if it is too restricting for the
    >sort of photo she wants to take.
    >
    >Thanks once again for the info.


    psssst.....

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2271/1532833661_c2fb8fa792_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. Don't show this to the DSLR people. It
    was taken with a P&S camera. If they find out that a P&S camera can do shallow
    DOF effects too then they'll have to find another reason for buying their
    cameras. Let's just keep it our little secret so they don't get all depressed
    over how much money they spent. Okay? I have tons more photographs like this one
    some with much shallower DOF in them, but I liked the orchids in this one, a
    very unusual variety. When using shallow DOF effects you should only keep it
    shallow enough to keep all parts of your main focus in subject. That's the
    mistake that so many DSLR people make with having only one small bit of their
    subject in focus. But then they have to. 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. This is why they are so proud of those high
    ISOs in the latest models that they pay a fortune for, because it finally allows
    them to get photos that P&S cameras have been able to get all along. Otherwise
    taking any of these kinds of photos are virtually impossible for them or at
    least extremely difficult. 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. But as I said, don't let them
    know this. They get all upset when they see proof to the contrary of what they
    want to believe and were told to believe all their lives. Some people are so
    touchy when you prove to them how much money they wasted. Oh well.
     
    Glenn Ramsen, Oct 10, 2007
    #7
  8. Jeff Layman

    stuseven Guest

    On Oct 10, 6:52 am, "Jeff Layman" <> wrote:
    > Some time ago in this group I asked about depth-of-field with a compact
    > digital camera. I was told that because of the small sensor size, this
    > isn't really a problem compared to 35 mm film cameras.
    >
    > A friend using her new Fuji (A610, I think) asked me how to get shots with
    > the background blurred and only the object of interest (eg a flower) in
    > focus. I could be much mistaken, but I guess that this would be almost
    > impossible. I can't see how to do it with my Caplio R6 either. Maybe using
    > the lens in macro telephoto rather than wide angle would help, but even then
    > I doubt you'd get the same effect as using a 35 mm film camera with a 50 mm
    > macro lens set at f2.
    >
    > It also set me wondering exactly how much the aperture of a P & S camera
    > changes when the lens specification is stated to be eg "f3 wide angle to
    > f5.3 telephoto".
    >
    > Are there any P & S cameras where you can control the aperture over the sort
    > of range you'd expect with a 35 mm camera and standard 50 mm lens (about
    > f1.6 - 22), and so change depth-of-field?
    >
    > --
    > Jeff
    > (cut "thetape" to reply)


    + well, what you might want to try is one of the plug-ins for graphics
    programs which [simulate] depth of focus changes... that is, if you
    already have the picture, and it isnt practical to re-photograph.
     
    stuseven, Oct 10, 2007
    #8
  9. Jeff Layman

    Paul Furman Guest

    Taylor Dawson [TROLL] wrote:
    > Alex Monro wrote:
    >
    >>I don't know of any P&S that has wider than f/2.4 max aperture, and
    >>the minimum is usually about f/8, due to diffraction considerations
    >>with the small sensor. If you need to control DoF, you need a larger
    >>sensor, which means a DSLR, or the Sony R1 - a fixed lens ultrazoom
    >>with an APS-C sized sensor.

    >
    > If you don't know of any P&S cameras that have a max aperture wider than f/2.4
    > then you shouldn't be posting such misleading information. Go do your homework
    > first. All of my P&S cameras are capable of f/2.4 or wider. One of my earliest
    > ones from 6 years ago has an f/2.0 lens on it. That's only 0.2 away from that
    > f/1.8 that DSLR owners always have an orgasm over, and they get that at only 1
    > focal length, mine is an f/2.0 zoom lens.


    That's cool, which camera? f/2 on the long end too?


    > You also need to learn what
    > "diffraction limited" means. If your lens is not configured to
    > diffraction-limited specifications that means it performs poorer than one that


    The practical application here is that the sensor limits the useable f/stop.


    > There are two ways to control DOF effects. Aperture and focal-length. If your
    > camera has a zoom lens on it then you can get identical shallow DOF effects as a
    > larger sensor camera by just zooming in and moving further away from your
    > subject. If you want to stay in the same position then increase the focal-length
    > of your lens using a tele-extender to accomplish the same results.


    Yes, this is the way to get selective focus: telephoto and/or macro.
    It's not as much as a larger sensor camera though at long focal lengths
    & particularly closeup, it's possible to get a similar look.
     
    Paul Furman, Oct 10, 2007
    #9
  10. Jeff Layman

    M-M Guest

    In article <>,
    Glenn Ramsen <> wrote:

    > http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2271/1532833661_c2fb8fa792_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. Don't show this to the DSLR people.



    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.

    Again, I'll refer you to this photo:

    http://www.mhmyers.com/temp/4500-d80.jpg

    I was about 100 feet from the sign and 200 ft from the background.

    --
    m-m
     
    M-M, Oct 10, 2007
    #10
  11. Jeff Layman

    Paul Furman Guest

    Glenn Ramsen wrote:

    > psssst.....
    >
    > http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2271/1532833661_c2fb8fa792_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.
     
    Paul Furman, Oct 10, 2007
    #11
  12. Jeff Layman

    Glenn Ramsen Guest

    On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:37:48 -0400, 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. 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.
     
    Glenn Ramsen, Oct 10, 2007
    #12
  13. Jeff Layman

    Paul Furman Guest

    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.
     
    Paul Furman, Oct 10, 2007
    #13
  14. Jeff Layman

    Fishermac Guest

    On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:48:57 GMT, Glenn Ramsen <>
    wrote:

    >On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:37:48 -0400, 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. 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
     
    Fishermac, Oct 11, 2007
    #14
  15. Jeff Layman

    Glenn Ramsen Guest

    On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:30:23 GMT, Paul Furman <> 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.
     
    Glenn Ramsen, Oct 11, 2007
    #15
  16. Jeff Layman

    John Navas Guest

    On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:29:56 GMT, Glenn Ramsen <>
    wrote in <>:

    >On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:30:23 GMT, Paul Furman <> 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)
     
    John Navas, Nov 9, 2007
    #16
  17. Jeff Layman

    John Navas Guest

    >> 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)
     
    John Navas, Nov 9, 2007
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Louis
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    485
    Marggi
    Aug 18, 2003
  2. Nick Good

    Depth of Field and HFD calculator for digital and film

    Nick Good, Aug 27, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    494
    Huygens
    Aug 27, 2004
  3. D-50 and Depth of Field preview?

    , Dec 8, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    419
  4. Hoover

    newbie's question on ISO and Depth of Field

    Hoover, Apr 9, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    589
  5. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Digital macro and depth of field articles

    Wayne J. Cosshall, Jan 16, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    332
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Jan 16, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page