depth of field

[Jeromy Blevin]

I've been with digital photography for a few years now. Bought a Canon Elph. I instantly fell in love. Loved the small size. No more stone hanging around my neck. I loved the downloading of images with no film to mess with. I loved the idea of just taking a ton of pictures and culling them later. However, there's one thing I miss: Depth-of-Field controls. The pictures I take with my Canon are fine, no problems with clarity, color, etc. But they have no real life. I surely miss the capability of blurring out the foreground and background. It gave my pictures drama. It made them come alive. I miss that. Here's my question.......is there a digital camera (of small size) that has the depth-of-field functionality I had with my big old fat Nikon?

pjblevin

[Osman Olgen]

I searched alot. My answer is no. I don't think it will be like an analog SLR machine. I guess it depends heavily on sensor size, unless you pay 7000$ to a digital SLR hagin 35mm equivalent sensor, depth of field is not perfect I guess.

Osman

[jfrancho]

I searched alot. My answer is no. I don't think it will be like an analog SLR machine. I guess it depends heavily on sensor size, unless you pay 7000$ to a digital SLR hagin 35mm equivalent sensor, depth of field is not perfect I guess.

OsmanOr buy a DRebel for < $1000.

[Photonak]

However, there's one thing I miss: Depth-of-Field controls. The pictures I take with my Canon are fine, no problems with clarity, color, etc. But they have no real life. I surely miss the capability of blurring out the foreground and background. It gave my pictures drama. It made them come alive. I miss that. Here's my question.......is there a digital camera (of small size) that has the depth-of-field functionality I had with my big old fat Nikon?

pjblevin

There are a couple of aspects to your question. Firstly, DOF is not a funcion of storage medium (sensor), but camera setting. For a given lens focal length, set the aperture and it defins the DOF. If you come close to the subject, the DOF decreases. This is the same with film or digital.

The difference is in focusing and lack of real low F-stops. With SLR and manual focus lens, you could select exactly where the focus plane would be. With P&S digital, you have no idea where the camera focuses. Or at least I can't tell. You can point it at something, choose spot focus, but you still do not know.

Remaining point is that most inexpensive (read $300) digital P&S do not have very good lenses and the designers limit them to F2.8-F8. Going lower would make the picture worse, as would going above F8. Consequently my A70 works from F2.8-F8, sort of "sweet range" for a lens.

Photonak

[jfrancho]

I wouldn't exactly call a sensor a storage device. Sensor size does limit the amount of control that is possible due in fact that p&s have such small sensors that may have a fairly narrow range of aperture settings to accurately capture an image. There are many p&s cameras with very good optics, and allow various degrees of control over camera settings. As far as focusing with a p&s, I've had modest results using spot fucusing and recomposing - the same technique I would use with an slr. Even my s500 allows some influence of the settings, though they are not as intuitive as the classic shutter priority, aperture priority, manual modes. The key to figuring out how you can do this is to take several pictures in a controlled setting (i.e. on a tripod with consistant lighting), and change certain settings. Then view the captures on screen, comparing the exif data with the results. You will be surprised at how much difference there is.

[Photonak]

I wouldn't exactly call a sensor a storage device. Sensor size does limit the amount of control that is possible due in fact that p&s have such small sensors that may have a fairly narrow range of aperture settings to accurately capture an image. .

Storage was not a good term, as there's no direct comperison. Film is both the sensor and storage. I'm not sure that the size of the sensor determines the size range of apertures - if you have a ref, I'd be happy to read about it.


There are many p&s cameras with very good optics, and allow various degrees of control over camera settings.


There may be, but I have not seen many tested and published. With SLR, you can test the lens independant of rest of the camera and film. With P&S digicam it's not so easy :-)


As far as focusing with a p&s, I've had modest results using spot fucusing and recomposing - the same technique I would use with an slr. Even my s500 allows some influence of the settings, though they are not as intuitive as the classic shutter priority, aperture priority, manual modes. The key to figuring out how you can do this is to take several pictures in a controlled setting (i.e. on a tripod with consistant lighting), and change certain settings. Then view the captures on screen, comparing the exif data with the results. You will be surprised at how much difference there is.

Yes, between spot focus and manual focus, you can get better results. It was so much easier to do it with the SLR, but we all jumped onto the digi-bandwagon and now we're complaining :-)

I still have my SLR stuff, but spend less time with it.

Photonak

[jfrancho]

Essay re: sensor size: http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/
There are many other link to great info. Here is the search string I used on Google: "digital camera" + "sensor size" + aperture


Every camera ever made is reviewed at least dozens of times in dozens of magazines, forums, etc. I'm positive you can find many that perform subjective lens tests.

BTW, when I use the acronym slr, I mean any single lens reflex camera, film or digital. In this particular context, I don't think the differences between film and digital apply, since they both offer the kind of control over the exposure that pjblevin is looking to have.

[PhotosGuy]

I surely miss the capability of blurring out the foreground and background. If you're able, use a low ISO, telephoto up close with a fast shutter speed. "Sports" setting?

[Curtis N]

Sensor size DOES have an effect on depth of field, as does film size. It depends on how you measure it, but generally the size of the circle of confusion used in the calculations needs to be relative to the sensor size if you're going to compare equal sized prints. Since the hyperfocal distance varies exponentially with focal length, the shorter lenses used on cameras with smaller sensors tend to increase DOF.

This is a really good article on the subject.
http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/dofdigital/

[jfrancho]

If you're able, use a low ISO, telephoto up close with a fast shutter speed. "Sports" setting?These are exactly the types of setups I was alluding to. It's amazing what you can get out of a p&s when you use it the "wrong" way!

[etaf]

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

remember the effective aperture is also impacted by sensor factor - thats why its difficult to get very narrow DoF's

[Photonak]

[QUOTE=jfrancho]I wouldn't exactly call a sensor a storage device. Sensor size does limit the amount of control that is possible due in fact that p&s have such small sensors that may have a fairly narrow range of aperture settings to accurately capture an image. QUOTE]

Been doing more reading and digging on the subject. Found someone who knows better and quoting here:

"There was a query in October, 2001 on my Discussion Forum (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/discus/index.html) as to whether Depth of Field was calculated any differently for digital Vs. film. The answer is, no. There is no difference whosesoever. DOF doesn't care about the recording media type or size, though a lower COF is used for medium and large format, since the amount of magnification to make a decent sized print is much less than for 35mm."

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dof.shtml

[Andy_T]

Photonak.. the last line of that luminous landscape article This is one of the unspoken drawbacks of low-end digital cameras. Only expensive SLRs like the Nikon D1x, Canon 1D and their ilk have chips close to the size of a 35mm frame, and therefore offer enough DOF to allow creative control over out-of-focus backgrounds.

... is complete BS ... it *is* very much possible to get a nicely blurred background with a 1.6x crop camera (e.g. DRebel/XT/10D/20D).

There is definitely less difference in 1x and 1.6x crop thyn between 1.6x and 5.0x crop (what you have on small point-and-shoot digital cameras).

So my suggestion would be to get the DRebel XT and Tamron 28-75/2.8 lens ... great DOF control, very nice bokeh and still a compact package.

Best regards,
Andy

[jfrancho]

[QUOTE=jfrancho]I wouldn't exactly call a sensor a storage device. Sensor size does limit the amount of control that is possible due in fact that p&s have such small sensors that may have a fairly narrow range of aperture settings to accurately capture an image. QUOTE]

Been doing more reading and digging on the subject. Found someone who knows better and quoting here:

"There was a query in October, 2001 on my Discussion Forum (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/discus/index.html) as to whether Depth of Field was calculated any differently for digital Vs. film. The answer is, no. There is no difference whosesoever. DOF doesn't care about the recording media type or size, though a lower COF is used for medium and large format, since the amount of magnification to make a decent sized print is much less than for 35mm."

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dof.shtmlA p&s has a sgnificantly smaller sensor with a narrow effective aperture range, thus less control over DOF. That link seems completely irrelevent (and outdated) to the dicussion, which was how to get that big bokeh look on a p&s. Am I missing something here?

[etaf]

you may be interested in this article - on DoF and crop factor
http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/dofdigital/

[bachscuttler]

If you're able, use a low ISO, telephoto up close with a fast shutter speed. "Sports" setting?

Taken on a Powershot A95 p&s, can't remember the exact settings but think they were 2x optical zoom, f2.8 and macro mode with the shutter speed adjusted to compensate.

Macro mode was the only way I could get any sort of shallow depth of field out of the A95.

http://images.fotopic.net/y54les.jpg

[AjP]

wow, I never thought that I can't make good DOF with my 20D :lol: here is it, foreground and background, no prob and no need to $7000 camera :)

http://ajp-photo.com/gallery/abstract/images/guitar.jpg

[PhotosGuy]

Nice shot! It's unfortunate that you had no blue sky. For future reference, you could try this "cheat":

Negative Lighting – a simple technique that makes a big difference! (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=70824)

[bachscuttler]

Nice shot! It's unfortunate that you had no blue sky. For future reference, you could try this "cheat":

Negative Lighting – a simple technique that makes a big difference! (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=70824)

We don't get blue skies here, (only on days without a 'Y' in it) a handful of shades of grey or if you don't set your exposure correctly, white! :)
Thanks for sharing the negative lighting trick...I'll give that a try :p

[likophoto]

If you want shallow DOF (blurry backgrounds) just use a large aperture (lower F stop) like a F2.0 or the lowest your camera will go. Usually you’ll have to put your camera in “A” mode (aperture mode) to set this. Also, the greater focal length (zoom) you use the greater the effect will be also. Most cameras will automatically select the largest aperture (appropriate for the lighting situation) for you if you set your camera to “Portrait” mode.

[jfrancho]

If you want shallow DOF (blurry backgrounds) just use a large aperture (lower F stop) like a F2.0 or the lowest your camera will go. Usually you’ll have to put your camera in “A” mode (aperture mode) to set this. Also, the greater focal length (zoom) you use the greater the effect will be also. Most cameras will automatically select the largest aperture (appropriate for the lighting situation) for you if you set your camera to “Portrait” mode.I think Jeromy understands how the aperture influences the picture. The original question was how to get a narrow DOF on his digital elph, which as far as I know does not have an aperture priority mode. It can help if you read the entire thread before posting.

[mdude85]

Not possible. As others said before, sensor size has a large effect on DOF. Small sensor = high depth of field. Sensor in these point and shoots is tiny. In addition, the distance from your lens to the sensor also factors into the mix. Since the lenses on P&S cameras are so small, there is high DOF (just do a little bit of research on the mathematical implications of DOF and focal length). Even if you decrease your P&S to f2.8 (which is pretty low for a P&S), you'll see practically infinity DOF.

[some_guy]

How about getting the A510 to get started. It has manual controls for a lot of things including aperture, shutter so you can work with the DOF. The effect may not be as good as on a DSLR but it is certainly possible to work with DOF on a relatively small P&S. No need to say that the bokeh won't be as good as on a DSLR with an L lens, though.

[mdude85]

How about getting the A510 to get started. It has manual controls for a lot of things including aperture, shutter so you can work with the DOF. The effect may not be as good as on a DSLR but it is certainly possible to work with DOF on a relatively small P&S. No need to say that the bokeh won't be as good as on a DSLR with an L lens, though.

I have an A510. Don't even think about DOF on it. If your subject is like 2 feet from the lens, you might get some background blur but nothing to write home about.

[PhotosGuy]

You could try a + filter which would let you get closer for less DOF. Here's a shot using one on the 300D:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/PhotosGuy/Plus10_0032.jpg


You can see more at the end of this gallery (http://photobucket.com/albums/v218/PhotosGuy/?start=0). Some, but not all, have "Plus10"_xxxin the pic name.

Note to the measurebaters: YES, it's soft! That's what I was going for.
;)
You can sharpen it up a bit with a smaller aperature, if you'd like.

[jfrancho]

Note to the measurebaters: YES, it's soft! That's what I was going for.LOL.