Compact camera that can get the shortest depth of field?

[mysteryscribe]

the truth is the subject helps to hide a multitude of sins. Your subject and handling is faultless so who really is going to examine the background for flaws. If something like this is lite flat, trust me no one is going to notice.

You help me not only make my point but to make several others. Those bridge cameras like the panasonic high end models may well do all that is needed by any photographer and the rest is just ego. But I can't say since I don't shoot digital.

I do know the difference between a hundred dollar lens in film and a thousand dollar lens is just more of the same. Given the choice the average customer would not pay more for the results. The truly knowledgable customer might, but the average customer that photographers have daily wouldn't, even if he could see it.

 

[markc]

Sorry. It looks like petroleum jelly on the lens to me, not bokeh. Maybe someone who is a beginner or "average" isn't going to spot it right off, but I'm not happy with my own work being just average. My goal is to continuously improve both my knowledge and skill.

For me, it's about picking the right tool for the job. You might be able to dig a hole with a garden rake, but I'd rather use a spade. There are certain things you can do in software in an excellent manner, like color balance, contrast adjustment, etc. Even montages in the manner of Jerry Uelsmann, if you have the right source material. Things like bokeh, infrared, and trying to change the quality of light (direct to diffuse, etc.) are a lot more work and less convincing for me.

The original poster asked a specific question regarding DOF on small-sensor cameras. I think that alone puts them beyond an "average" photographer, if not in skill then in interest. There's a reason I'll use numbers in examples: there's a science to photography as well as an art. People may think it somehow kills the magic, but ignoring it isn't going to make it any less true. You can close your eyes and make all the wishes you want, but if you jump out of a tree, you are still going to accelerate at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s (adjusted for altitude and wind resistance, which can also be determined). Things like aperture size and focal length matter in a very real and scientific way. There's not magic there. The magic, and art, comes from how we use these effects.

I can understand how people might have a knee-jerk reaction to promoting expensive equipment, but that's not even what I'm doing here. I bought a Mamiya 35mm camera and 55mm/f1.8 lens for $35 off of eBay. It's not so cheap of you want to go digital, especially with the large sensor cameras being so expensive still, but that's the science and the reality of the situation.

Sure, you can fudge it with Photoshop, but you can fudge just about anything in there. It's seems that the "you can use any camera" rant is bumping up against the "Photoshop won't fix a bad picture" rant. Again, I'm not saying that people shouldn't be happy with a software blur. If that's what works for you, great! I just want people to be aware of the differences. Whether the differences matter to you is a personal matter, but at least then you can choose rather than being blind to them. I personally don't find the difference in the "L" lenses compare to what I have now to be worth $1000+ for me right now, but at least I know that there is a difference if I ever need tack-sharp images; I'm not left thinking that they are just a marketing ploy. The physics of quality glass is very real. I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying that it's not important to my photography right now.

I also say that the "bridge" cameras are great for most things, but very shallow DOF of subjects at a distance, as with a long focal length, isn't going to be one of them. That has nothing to do with ego; that's the science. Whether that matters, or if a software blur will be good enough, is up to you. You decide. I'm not trying to do that for you.

 

[markc]

If something like this is lite flat, trust me no one is going to notice.

Wow, you make an awful lot of broad statements as if they were the truth. *I'll* notice. I'll see the wrinkles in the sheet and the glare on her cheek, too. I'm not so hypnotized by the breasts that they'll dull my photographic eye to the point that these things don't jump out at me. Nice of you to speak for everyone.

I'm not saying that he needs more expensive equipment to do what he wants or that this is a bad shot. Far from it. But I can certainly tell the difference between this shot and one from a fashion magazine.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Mark most of what you say has little to do with me so I dont have an opinion. But I take exception with one factual and one perceptive issue.

Factual...patroleum jelly would have a uniform softness not a graduated one.

Perceptual: Everyone makes universal statements. I can say everyone is opposed to the concept of war and sure as hell someone will say but i love carnage and death. When you say everyone, I think it is understood it is not truly going to be everyone. That there will indeed be some minority of people who see things differently. I personally don't pick every picture I see apart. I'm just not that interested past, is it a good picture, and that one is.

As for the other issues you raise, I leave that to anyone else who is interested. I certainly have no use for photoshop but I don't deny what it can do either.

Let me just add one thing I forgot. Depth of field as we are using it here is softness around the end of the zone of focus and It begins imperceptably before and after the subject and increases as it get farther away. There is absolutely nothing mysterious it.

Certainly there is nothing that makes that gradual sharpening and softening different in the purely created lens version and not in the editied version. Not so long as the softness gradually decreases as it moves to the subject and increases again after it leaves the subject. There is absolutly no way a soft image can look different because it was created by a lens. A poorly done, as mine obviously was, edit created variation of softness looks like just that a poorly done one. But to say there is a difference in softness that can not be created any other way is foolishness in my opinion.

 

[Mad_Gnome]

The question of whether or not Photoshop-created DOF works for you will be solved mainly by one question: how much is your time worth? If you're only doing one or two photographs, the extensive amount of work to recreate what a good lens can do inherently might be worth the initial money savings. If you're intending to put that much work into an extensive number of photographs...how much time will that take you? What kind of hourly rate is your time worth? Multiply those two and see if it costs the same as a 50mm f/1.8 lens, which is fully capable of creating a very narrow DOF. Or a 50mm f/1.4, for that matter. Or any of a few dozen other lenses that can recreate the same effect. Add in the cost of Photoshop itself, which retails for more than twice what my 50mm f/1.4 did. Are you still saving money?

Can Photoshop recreate the effect with a reasonable degree of success? Yes. But is it worth it when it can be created more quickly, more easily, and for less investment with the proper equipment?

 

[mysteryscribe]

I have absolutely no arguement with that reasoning.

Just don't try to kid me that to get that effect you have to buy a thousand dollar lens and nothing else will do. First of all I agree that any 1.4 1.8 or even 2.8 will do that. So you have to crop a little instead shooting from the next county. Sorry I just don't buy into the the fill a room full of stuff to produce one picture a week. A proof can be softened in a few minutes and a finished image for printing in twenty minutes max. To tell someone they can't do it any other way but to buy the expensive lens just isn't true.


By the what exactly does the rate of acceleration have to do with depth of field and being about to create it stating with a bridge camera.

 

[markc]

Factual...patroleum jelly would have a uniform softness not a graduated one.

So thickness or smoothness of application will have no effect? Interesting.
Well, I was just picking the closest thing it looked like to me anyway. It didn't look like bokeh to my eyes. Notice that I never stated that view as a fact, because it's not, nor did I claim to speak for everyone. Some people may think it looks like bokeh, and some may think it looks like something else entirely.

When you say everyone, I think it is understood it is not truly going to be everyone.

I don't, and I consider that lazy communication. I guess it's getting outside the realm of photography, but the reason I brought it up is that I think it does those who are trying to learn a disservice. How are they supposed to distinguish between everyone and "everyone"? Your use with the image above is a perfect example. Maybe everyone you know wouldn't notice the difference, but in my circle, the vast majority would*. They are all accomplished photographers after all (much more so than I), and this is a photography web site. Should I then say that everyone will notice a difference? I personally don't think I should.

There is absolutly no way a soft image can look different because it was created by a lens.

How about your image above? It certainly looks different from lens blur to me.

A poorly done, as mine obviously was, edit created variation of softness looks like just that a poorly done one.

I'm not sure what that means. If the software blur isn't done right, it doesn't look like bokeh, just some kind of blur.

But to say there is a difference in softness that can not be created any other way is foolishness in my opinion.

Go back and reread what I said. I never claimed it couldn't be done. I said it takes a lot of work to get anywhere near convincing. You need to spend a lot of time with the selection tool to get everything that is the same distance away from the camera at the same blur. That's easy when you are talking a photo of an empty parking lot. You can just use a gradient out into the distance. But if you have a lot of items and a lot of different angles, you need to account for every single one. Besides that, there are many ways to create blur with software. The number of iris blades in a lens affects the bokeh, just as blur technique affects the outcome in software. Some don't look so good.

For many people, time is money. It seems like promoting the idea of spending hours at the computer for every image just to add DOF is as much of a waste as adding equipment you don't need. What's wrong with just getting the equipment that can do it in the first place if that's what you want to accomplish?



*I'm making an assumption here, but I don't think I'm off-base. Several are the people I learned from, after all, and I have a pretty good idea of how they see an image after observing my own and my fellow classmates' work being critiqued.

 

[markc]

I have absolutely no arguement with that reasoning.

Just don't try to kid me that to get that effect you have to buy a thousand dollar lens and nothing else will do. First of all I agree that any 1.4 1.8 or even 2.8 will do that. So you have to crop a little instead shooting from the next county. Sorry I just don't buy into the the fill a room full of stuff to produce one picture a week. A proof can be softened in a few minutes and a finished image for printing in twenty minutes max. To tell someone they can't do it any other way but to buy the expensive lens just isn't true.

I am continually amazed at how you can be reading that from my posts. The Canon 50mm/f1.8 can be had for less than $100, and is exactly what I've been using in my examples.

 

[markc]

The question of whether or not Photoshop-created DOF works for you will be solved mainly by one question: how much is your time worth? If you're only doing one or two photographs, the extensive amount of work to recreate what a good lens can do inherently might be worth the initial money savings. If you're intending to put that much work into an extensive number of photographs...how much time will that take you? What kind of hourly rate is your time worth? Multiply those two and see if it costs the same as a 50mm f/1.8 lens, which is fully capable of creating a very narrow DOF. Or a 50mm f/1.4, for that matter. Or any of a few dozen other lenses that can recreate the same effect. Add in the cost of Photoshop itself, which retails for more than twice what my 50mm f/1.4 did. Are you still saving money?

Can Photoshop recreate the effect with a reasonable degree of success? Yes. But is it worth it when it can be created more quickly, more easily, and for less investment with the proper equipment?

Yes! Thank you. That's exactly it.

 

[mysteryscribe]

I can see now I'm going to have to either stop trying to discuss this stuff or buy a digital camera. I don't have that much interest in owning digital cameras of my own, so i think i need to give up commenting on digital.

I still don't think in this particular instance it is necessary to have a dslr to make an acceptable short depth of field shot, and nothing anyone has said has convinced me it is the other way. There are just too many graphic artist who own nothing but pns cameras for me to believe you can't improvise and make it work.

As to the origninal question I suspect the 2.8 lens would make the same depth of field shot as the 2.8 on a slr.. it does on a med format vs 35mm if I remember correctly. I am willing to concede that may not be correct.

If that is the case, is a 2.8 depth of field unacceptable to the author. I can remember a time when 2.8 was considered a fast lens with very poor imagine quality because it had so little depth of field at that setting.

So if you find me commenting again on any digital product or proceedure please kick me in the butt.

Otherwise I'm not changing my opinions. I still don't think equipment is the answer to photography. Then again I shoot with fixed lens cameras for the most part. THAT is an opinion and the acceration rate of a brick vs a concrete block has no bearing on it.

 

[markc]

I still don't think in this particular instance it is necessary to have a dslr to make an acceptable short depth of field shot, and nothing anyone has said has convinced me it is the other way.

You can, as RMThompson's shots show. What is hard to do is get the short DOF when the subject isn't close to the camera. I'm going by data here, not experience, so if someone can post an uncropped shot from a small sensor camera showing otherwise (like at 20'), that would be cool.

As to the origninal question I suspect the 2.8 lens would make the same depth of field shot as the 2.8 on a slr.. it does on a med format vs 35mm if I remember correctly. I am willing to concede that may not be correct.

It is if it's on the same focal length lens. f2.8 on a 50mm lens is the same size no matter what camera it's on. The issue is that f2.8 on a 9mm lens is a lot smaller than f2.8 on an 50mm lens, even though both are considered "normal" for their sensor size and have the same field of view (the picture composition will look the same). The small sensor cameras use very small focal lengths, so even though their f-numbers are lower, the actual apertures are very small. The blur comes from the actual size of the opening, not the f-number.

F-stops are just a ratio. Diameter of aperture = focal length / f-number. To get the true aperture opening, you divide the focal length by the f-stop. f2.8 on a 50mm lens is 17.86mm wide. That's a big opening, so you get a very shallow DOF. f2.8 on a 9mm lens is 3.2mm wide. That's a lot smaller. Now a 9mm lens on a small digital will take the same looking picture as a 50mm lens will on a 5D or 35mm film camera as far as composition goes. That's not at issue. The problem is that 9mm lens has a small aperture, even though it's labeled as f2.8. The focal length is small, so the aperture is small. To get an idea of what f2.8 is like on a small sensor camera compared to a larger one, we can just see what f-stop the 50mm lens is at a 3.2mm opening. It would be just about f16, since 50mm (focal length) / 3.2mm (diameter of aperture) = f15.625 (f-number).

This would also apply to a 9mm lens on a 35mm camera or a 5D. That's why it's so hard to get shallow DOF with a wide angle lens, and why a telephoto is so good at it. The reason 9mm is important is that's the normal focal length for some of those small cameras. That's why I'm comparing it to a 50mm lens. Even something that's telephoto on those small cameras doesn't get out of the wide angle range for the bigger cameras. The A610's max focal length is only 29.2mm@f4!

Here's another way to look at it using actual numbers from the A610. At full wide and full aperture, that camera can do 7.3mm@f2.8. That's an actual aperture diameter of 2.6mm. A focal length of 7.3mm is like a 35mm lens on a film camera, so that f2.8 is like f12.5 on a larger camera using a lens with a comparable field of view, where you'll get the same composition and be standing in the same spot.

At full telephoto and full aperture, that camera can do 29.2mm@f4.1. That's an actual aperture diameter of 7.12mm. A focal length of 29.2mm is like a 140mm lens on 35mm film, so f4.1 at that focal length is like f20 on a larger camera.

Yet another way to compare is to look at the distance scales on a couple of lenses. When setting the near distance to 1m on my 50mm lens, the far distance is almost 3m at f22. On my 85mm lens, it's 1-1.2m at f22. That makes sense when you do the math. f22 on the 50mm is 2.27mm. f22 on the 85mm is 3.86mm. The smaller actual aperture size on the 50mm lens gives it more DOF.

With that in mind, would you be up for an experiment RMThompson to see if those numbers play out? I might be missing some aspect on how all this goes together. Take a picture at max aperture using the lens at max telephoto (29.2mm). Have someone stand in from of a tree or building that has some detail. Back up enough so that you can get at least a full head shot. Try one that's more upper torso too. A full body shot might be interesting if you have the room. I'm guessing you might have to go outside.

 

[mysteryscribe]

I wish to say that I stand corrected,,, Which I often do... I did some reading and their indeed is a difference between a 2.8 on a small sensor camera and a larger one. It seems the same is true with any sensor or film camera so indeed a 120 would have a shorter depth of field than a 35mm.

I suppose the reason no one ever noticed is that modern lense were marked with the depth of field indicators and we always thought the other way, You wanted large depths so we didnt worry,

Turns out there is a math formula for depth of field by sinsor size. If short depth of field is important to you in the camera you should go there and see what yours is each brand of camera is different. with differences even in the line of cameras offered by the brand,

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/tech/dof.html#NTA

So I stand corrected how well these work you can document there.

My original thought that you just create your depth of field if a particular image needs it stands. I still believe it is possible to creat depth of field in the few pictures most people would use it in the editing without the need of buys a camera outfit costing significantly more money. The time vs money arguement is as valid now as I agreed that it was before.

 

[markc]

Turns out there is a math formula for depth of field by sinsor size. If short depth of field is important to you in the camera you should go there and see what yours is each brand of camera is different. with differences even in the line of cameras offered by the brand,

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/tech/dof.html#NTA

Yeah. That's using the same concept as my numbers were, but from a different angle. It's still not the sensor size directly, but the focal length range it uses. The "M" in their formula covers that aspect, which is the focal length conversion factor between sensor sizes.

I suppose the reason no one ever noticed is that modern lense were marked with the depth of field indicators and we always thought the other way, You wanted large depths so we didnt worry,

...

My original thought that you just create your depth of field if a particular image needs it stands. I still believe it is possible to creat depth of field in the few pictures most people would use it in the editing without the need of buys a camera outfit costing significantly more money. The time vs money arguement is as valid now as I agreed that it was before.

I guess that goes back to how we see photography differently. I'm all for the common man, but common art leaves me cold. There are times when you want everything sharp, like with most landscapes, but for portraits and such, many people like to blur out the background. This may not have been common in your circle, but in my experience of photography, this has always been an option and a long-standing practice. Snapshot takers tend to want everything in focus, no matter what, so those small cameras can be perfect for them. For people who want to go beyond a snapshot and have some more creative control, they can be limiting.

I agree that using software is an option, but I still think it's not a particularly effective one if you want to do more than the occasional image. If you want to do landscapes, no problem. If you want to do portraits and have control over DOF, I think people are better suited with a longer focal length lens, which unfortunately means a larger sensor.

So I guess we are in the same chapter now, if not on the same page. I think a lot of what's left is personal taste. It seems you dislike short DOF in general, and I don't like the results of software; you like to shoot with what's at hand, and I prefer more control.

 

[Flash Harry]

Trouble is punters dont give a s**t, they just look at the product and if they like their expression or how you've caught them they're happy, its nothing to do with how the effect was created, they're not interested in lens technicalities they just want a pretty picture.

 

[Don Simon]

That is almost certainly true in many cases, but I don't really see the relevance. The original post wasn't about commercial photography or what the punters want when you're producing prints for other people; someone specifically expressed an interest in achieving shallow DOF. They wanted to know if it could be achieved with any current fixed-lens compact digital cameras, the debate was on whether or not it could, then it turned into one on whether the more shallow DOF attainable with a fast prime could be convincingly simulated in software (and whether it's convenient to do so). Presumably 'pubius' is still interested in achieving shots with a shallow DOF, so I guess he/she cares about how the effect is created