Compact camera that can get the shortest depth of field?

I know that in general, p&s cameras have too short a focal length, and too limited ap. settings to get a small depth of field. Wondering if anyone knows one that gets closer to being able to achieve smaller d.o.f without shooting macro way up close. Thanks for anyone's help.

 

sony makes a 2.8 cybershot w/ 8.1 mp. that's all i got to help.

 

I'm assuming you mean digital. If not there are several fixed-lens compact film cameras that would fit the bill. Otherwise I think the majority of fixed-lens compact digital models have f/2.8 or slower lenses. The Canon Powershot G6 has an f/2.0-f/3.0, and one of the Panasonic FZ models had a constant f/2.8, so that might be the best you can get in compact models. I'll give the usual advice here and say an SLR with a fast prime lens is the best way to achieve shallow DOF, but obviously a dSLR may not be the right choice for you, in which case the Powershot and Panasonic are both highly regarded.

 

Unfortunately that's the biggest I've seen also.

 

I'm pretty sure my Canon A85 can open up to f/2.8 but it seems when ever i use it the depth of field isn't anywhere near as shallow as it is when using my SLR

 

As I understand it, it's not the size of the sensor directly, but the short focal lengths they have to use. The f numbers are a ratio, not a direct measurement of size. f2.8 on a 50mm is an opening about 19mm in diameter. On a 9mm lens (one camera I looked at has a range of 5.8mm-17.4mm for its lens!), f2.8 is only 3mm. 3mm on a 50mm lens is f16! Cropping comes into play, which might enlarge the effective area in focus; but still, f16 is a huge difference from f2.8, even if you crop in quite a bit.

As an aside, f2.8 on a 300mm lens is a whopping 107mm across, which is why large aperture telephotos are so expensive. That's like having an f.45 on a 50mm lens. It would be more than twice as wide as it is long!

 

I dont use P&S cams myself but its unessesary to have a wide aperture to put the background out of focus, simply move closer to the subject and focus on what you need sharp, the BG will be out of focus.

 

frankly in these days of digital editing short depth of field is over rated.

 

Why is that? I find that adding it in Photoshop looks fake to me. Software is great for a lot of things, but smooth dof transitions is not one of them. That's why I don't care for using PS to try and emulate the LensBaby.

 

That doesn't work so great with narrow apertures. Plus you choose a focal length based on how it looks, you may be limited on how close you can get.