SLR's ..... frustrating ?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by advid, Jun 30, 2004.

  1. advid

    advid Guest

    .... 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, Jun 30, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. advid

    adm Guest

    "advid" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > ... 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.
     
    adm, Jun 30, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. advid

    Mick Sterbs Guest

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

    > 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.
     
    Mick Sterbs, Jun 30, 2004
    #3
  4. advid

    Justin Thyme Guest

    "advid" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > ... 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.
     
    Justin Thyme, Jun 30, 2004
    #4
  5. advid

    YoYo Guest

    Like Mick said you need to learn.

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


    "advid" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > ... 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...
     
    YoYo, Jun 30, 2004
    #5
  6. advid

    Advid Guest

    ...... 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:...
    > > ... 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, Jun 30, 2004
    #6
  7. advid

    Mark B. Guest

    "advid" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > ... 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
     
    Mark B., Jun 30, 2004
    #7
  8. advid

    DJ Guest

    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.
     
    DJ, Jun 30, 2004
    #8
  9. advid

    Advid Guest

    ...... 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, Jun 30, 2004
    #9
  10. advid

    Mark B. Guest

    "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
     
    Mark B., Jun 30, 2004
    #10
  11. 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....
    >


    I have the same type of frustrations with my golf clubs. I bought the
    same clubs that Tiger uses but those damn things will only hit the
    ball with a pronounced slice and they hardly ever par a hole for me.

    I must have gotten another bad set.

    "I'm the luckiest man in the world. I have a cigarette
    lighter and a wife...and they both work!"
     
    Cadillac_Jones, Jun 30, 2004
    #11
  12. In article <>, 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...


    You might want to learn about photography. The problem is not wit the
    camera.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jun 30, 2004
    #12
  13. advid

    Jimmy G Guest

    Try to remember that YOU are smarter than the camera!

    YOU must control your equipment, not vice versa.
     
    Jimmy G, Jun 30, 2004
    #13
  14. advid

    Roger Guest

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

    >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...


    Ah, but you have young eyes m'lad. Seeing the world like you do is not
    the way everyone sees the world. For this task, I'd really suggest the
    Canon s60 with it's 28mm (equivalent) lens. I find that it faithfully
    records what's out there.

    >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')..


    Regards,
    Roger
     
    Roger, Jun 30, 2004
    #14
  15. advid

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Either buy a wide angle lens or sell the 300 d.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    "advid" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > ... 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...
     
    Tony Spadaro, Jun 30, 2004
    #15
  16. In article <>,
    says...
    > 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....


    Just a simple question from my own experience; are you remembering that
    you can up the sensitivity (ISO) settings in low-light conditions?
    Being as the 300D is my first digital SLR, I'm still in the mode of
    assuming the ISO is fixed. When I do remember, then often it's enough
    to eke out that stretcher of a shot.

    --
    Charles Jones -- Loveland, Colorado
    ICQ: 29610755
    AIM: LovelandCharles
    Y!M: charlesjonesathpcom
    MSN:
     
    Charles Jones, Jun 30, 2004
    #16
  17. advid

    Big Bill Guest

    On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:26:09 +0100, "Advid" <> wrote:

    >..... 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...


    You can't 'set depth of field'; you can set the aperture which will
    *affect* the depth of field.
    >
    >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....


    Exactly, you do the best with what you have.
    >
    >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'....


    Then you may be better served with a point'n'shoot camera, which will
    much better capture the moment that you want.
    SLRs are better at capturing what the photographer wants the image
    viewer to see, instead of just the 'moment'.
    Not to knock either camp, of course. But the reason there are
    different camera types is to better serve different photographer
    types.
    >
    >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....


    See above; you may not be a person who 'fits' the SLR photography
    style.
    >
    >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


    There is no camera that "does it all." Sorry.
    Thjere are only cameras that do what you want them to do, or not.
    If the SLR fits into he "not" category, then you would be better
    served by getting a camera that fits in the category that does what
    you want it to.

    SLRs aren't for everyone, as you've discovered. There's nothing wrong
    with being one of those who doesn't find a SLR to be what you want.
    Get what you want and take pics!

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


    Well, more money helps, too. :)
    >
    >
    >...... or can you.... ?? :)

    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
     
    Big Bill, Jun 30, 2004
    #17
  18. advid

    Big Bill Guest

    On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 07:23:20 -0700, Randall Ainsworth
    <> wrote:

    >You might want to learn about photography. The problem is not wit the
    >camera.


    True, but it may just be the wrong camera.
    A P&S in the OP's case may be a much better choice.

    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
     
    Big Bill, Jun 30, 2004
    #18
  19. Hum.. If i put my hand on an arms length from my eyes and focus on that
    one ( with my eyes) the background gets blurry, and if i focus on the
    background my hand gets blurry.. Nice eyes you have that can focus on
    both at the same time. I envy you.

    But still, if you want that effect then get a better P&S camera instead
    of an dSLR. They treat the subject differently and you should always use
    the tools that works for you.

    /Mikael Alfredsson.

    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...
     
    Mikael Alfredsson, Jun 30, 2004
    #19
  20. advid

    scott Guest

    Advid wrote:
    > ..... 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....


    What ISO speed are you using?
     
    scott, Jun 30, 2004
    #20
    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. Simon Pleasants

    Keep losing connection to network - VERY frustrating!

    Simon Pleasants, Aug 20, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    17,044
  2. Ron Joiner

    Intermittent disconnects - very frustrating!

    Ron Joiner, Jan 23, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    9,175
    Ron Joiner
    Jan 25, 2005
  3. Drummerboy

    Frustrating wireless networking problem.....please help.

    Drummerboy, Mar 12, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    627
    Drummerboy
    Mar 15, 2005
  4. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    418
    sethra
    Jul 8, 2003
  5. Brian H¹©
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    601
    Brian H¹©
    Jul 28, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page