Compact camera that can get the shortest depth of field?

[mysteryscribe]

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

I think the pure question was is there a pns that can get sufficient lack of dof to do what it he wants. I suppose the answer is what do you want to do.

It is my opinion that it is a mole hill trying to be a mountain. The effect can be done with software. I would practice with the software to see if it is satifactory for my desires, if not and he wants short dof he may have to brush up on his math. The chart on the site I listed gives a mathmatical formula for figuring the brands of cameras and which will come the closes to a traditional film cameras. So that he can compare them roughly and make his own decission.

As for the whole depth of field thing, it leaves me cold. The only time I was really concerned with depth of field was when it was a necessary element of what I was shooting. Ie a three row group in the front of a church. Me and all my photographer friends would agree that you wanted as much dof field as possible. Now that might leave some people cold but its not art it's reality.

If I were shooting a shot outside or even in a large room and the background was going to be distracting. I would fuzz it out when I can. It wasn't a big artist issue for me, or my friends, who all were also in the business. We just did what we had to do with Dof...


As for now, If I shoot a picture and get it winds up on a digital file and if the background is distracting, I'll just get rid of it. For me it's the end result. That might seem counter to my using old cameras and trying to do everything in the camera but hey I have always painted out things which bothered me on the photograph. So software is no more to me than an easier touch up brush.

And Mark you are right, we look at photography very differently. That's about the kindest way to put it for both of us.

 

[Don Simon]

As for the whole depth of field thing, it leaves me cold. The only time I was really concerned with depth of field was when it was a necessary element of what I was shooting. Ie a three row group in the front of a church. Me and all my photographer friends would agree that you wanted as much dof field as possible. Now that might leave some people cold but its not art it's reality.

If I were shooting a shot outside or even in a large room and the background was going to be distracting. I would fuzz it out when I can. It wasn't a big artist issue for me, or my friends, who all were also in the business. We just did what we had to do with Dof...

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here (I'm feeling a bit slow tonight). Are you saying that controlling depth of field was never important for you beyond making sure the subject or subjects were in acceptable focus? In which case you might as well have a fixed (small) aperture as well as fixed lens. Or are you only saying that you never felt the need to have very shallow depth of field? Or something else?

Also the bit about being able to do the effect in software still seems questionable to me. In fact I'd say it can't be done so much as simulated. That is certainly possible. It is also possible in PS to paste someone in front of a building in a different shot... but it takes time and effort to do it convincingly, if you both lived nearby would it not be easier to actually take a shot of them in front of that building? So you can replicate the effect of shallow depth of field... but convincingly, quickly and consistently? I know we all have different ideas of photography but I do think there's a reason people talk about the quality of 'bokeh' beyond trying to justify buying extra gear. For me it's not a question of needing very expensive or specialist equipment. It's more about asking yourself, if you want to take shots with fairly shallow depth of field on a regular basis and it's going to take you quite some time to convincingly simulate the effect, would it really be that wasteful or pointless to go out and spend under $50 on an old SLR and prime?

By the way I'm happy to be proved wrong (sometimes!), and if anyone's still interested in trying to simulate the effect in software I thought I might take a couple of shots of a more tricky scene with and without shallow DOF.

Finally, as it's just gone midnight here, I hope you all had a good Christmas! And RIP James Brown.

 

[mysteryscribe]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here (I'm feeling a bit slow tonight). Are you saying that controlling depth of field was never important for you beyond making sure the subject or subjects were in acceptable focus? In which case you might as well have a fixed (small) aperture as well as fixed lens. Or are you only saying that you never felt the need to have very shallow depth of field? Or something else?

Not sure what you dont understand. In my mind the purpose of apperture is to properly expose the picture but in conjunction with the shutter speed.

Given the choice I would use as small apperture as possible when shooting groups of staggered people. Long depth of field being desirable.

Given the choice I would use a large apperture when shooting a person or thing where I needed to fuzz out the background.. I e short depth of field. All things relative to the shot. I in no way see how this is equatable to a fixed aperture lens. It seems to me that it is the opposite.

would it really be that wasteful or pointless to go out and spend under $50 on an old SLR and prime?


The discussion was not about a fifty dollar slr, It was about a few hundred dollar pns or a dslr seemingly to make that one type shot.

By the way I'm happy to be proved wrong (sometimes!), and if anyone's still interested in trying to simulate the effect in software I thought I might take a couple of shots of a more tricky scene with and without shallow DOF.


Please do I would be thrilled to take a shot at it. But to be fair, we should do a blind test. You shoot one with everything in focus post it. Then shoot one from the same spot with short depth of field and DON'T post it. Let whoever wants work the one you post then send it to you. You post all of them in the general gallery and see which one the people here think is better of if there is any significant difference. Win or lose if it makes people better informed it will be a win win..

 

[ftops]

it alllllll depends on the lense. and remember, the further you focus on something, the deeper the depth of field is going to be, and the higher the aperture will have to be set at. the smallest ive heard of is a lense for my olympus om-pc, which is just a 50mm lense with a 1:1 ratio.

each lense is different: an f-stop of 2.8 is not a universal thing, and ive never found p&s to be all that great when it comes to shallow dop.

 

[Don Simon]

Not sure what you dont understand. In my mind the purpose of apperture is to properly expose the picture but in conjunction with the shutter speed.

Given the choice I would use as small apperture as possible when shooting groups of staggered people. Long depth of field being desirable.

Given the choice I would use a large apperture when shooting a person or thing where I needed to fuzz out the background.. I e short depth of field. All things relative to the shot. I in no way see how this is equatable to a fixed aperture lens. It seems to me that it is the opposite.

I guess what I don't understand is the idea of aperture and shutter speed being there simply to "properly expose the picture", and creative control having no bearing. I'm not talking about high art here, just a level of control that goes beyond 'proper exposure', for example maybe using a slow shutter speed to emphasise blurring in motion, or (in the case of aperture) deciding to control the depth of field. For me controlling depth of field goes well beyond "fuzzing out the background". That may well be the case with a standard portrait. But a lot of shots don't simply consist of a subject and a background. They may contain different subjects and elements, at different positions and distances. Sometimes you want a graduation in the depth of field, not simply "subject in focus, background fuzzy". I.e. you would not necessarily want that group of staggered people all in sharp focus. Of course it is all relative to the shot, what else would it be?

The discussion was not about a fifty dollar slr, It was about a few hundred dollar pns or a dslr seemingly to make that one type shot.

But was it? I'm just skimming through the thread here but it's mainly been yourself who was talking about thousand dollar gear. Earlier in the post I said I would do the shot with a film SLR if not a digital one, and no one's yet suggested that film isn't an option here, so why is the debate not about a fifty dollar slr, and why is it about a thousand dollar one?


As for the DOF/software comparison thing, good idea about only posting the one shot. I'm just heading out and hopefully will be able to post something later on.

 

[mysteryscribe]

I guess what I don't understand is the idea of aperture and shutter speed being there simply to "properly expose the picture", and creative control having no bearing.

That is not at all what I said. I said this.

Not sure what you dont understand. In my mind the purpose of apperture is to properly expose the picture but in conjunction with the shutter speed.

Given the choice I would use as small apperture as possible when shooting groups of staggered people. Long depth of field being desirable.

Given the choice I would use a large apperture when shooting a person or thing where I needed to fuzz out the background.. I e short depth of field. All things relative to the shot. I in no way see how this is equatable to a fixed aperture lens. It seems to me that it is the opposite.

This comment began in reference to you suggesting that I was suggesting the equivalent of a fixed aperture camera and dof the same in all cases not a study of the effect of shutter speed on motion.

I think I covered that aperture was more than contol of exposure it is also for more than contol of dof.

 

[Don Simon]

I thought I was asking rather than suggesting

As for control of DOF, I'm sure you did cover it but that wasn't the impression I got from reading the post. You said, "The only time I was really concerned with depth of field was when it was a necessary element of what I was shooting". You gave a couple of examples and talked about fuzzing out the background when it's distracting. I just can't really relate to that. The appropriate depth of field concerns me as part of every shot, to me it's a basic element of composition which I always consider along with all the other elements. I got the impression from your post that you didn't share this view.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Then I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. My main consern when I compose a photograph are the elements in the photograph. All the rest is just how to make it work. For me depth of field is only a consideration in how to make the compostion work.

It is absolutely secondary to the composition of the shot as far as I'm concerned. I can't imagine it being a primary concern for me under any circumstances, except as an example of what can be done with aperture. That might just be me but I don't think in those terms.

I think I want a shot of this object but I dont want that school building in the background so fuzz it. I don't think gee I want to make a fuzzy picture with an object of somekind in the center let me go find one. People the same way. If I'm shooting a portrait and had my druthers I would always shoot it small aperture but sometimes you can't. It just isn't a primary consideration for me as it seems to be for some people
So lets just agree to disagree on it's importance.

That still doesn't change the basics. I can do what I (maybe not you) want with software, when it isn't possible in the hardware. So if I can do it, so can anyone else if they are patient and take their time with it. Soft focus, no matter how it is created, is still soft focus. Now that is a personal opinion but it isn't something that I am likely to change . I'm sure your belief ,that you can't create the same effect with software that you can with hardware, is likely to change either.

As for time vs money, I will spend ten minutes to save a grand most any day. I will also spend it to save an image I am otherwise happy with. Maybe that is just me, but it's how I started and how I plan to end. It is why in the old days I learned to retouch. Sometimes there isn't a lens soft enough to hide acne scars and a paintbrush is your only friend. Now it's a cloning tool.

 

[Don Simon]

I think I want a shot of this object but I dont want that school building in the background so fuzz it. I don't think gee I want to make a fuzzy picture with an object of somekind in the center let me go find one.

Nor do I. I often find shallow depth of field very effective for certain shots, that doesn't mean I specifically set out looking for a shot on which I can use shallow depth of field. It's not a more important concern than others, but to me it's neither more or less important than composition, because it is part of composition. But I agree that we should agree to disagree

As for the soft focus in software thing, no I don't think either of us change our opinions, but I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised by what others can do with software so I'll try to get some shots uploaded soon.

As for time vs money, I will spend ten minutes to save a grand most any day. I will also spend it to save an image I am otherwise happy with. Maybe that is just me, but it's how I started and how I plan to end. It is why in the old days I learned to retouch.

Now I know we're not going to agree on everything, but surely we can agree that it is really not necessary to spend a grand to take a shot with shallow depth of field without using software. That $50 film SLR and prime still seems like a perfectly good option to me. Yes I would spend ten minutes to save $50 too, but ten minutes and ten minutes and ten minutes adds up.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Well it seems that according to at least a few folks here if you want to achieve short depth of field in digital which was the original origin of the discussion was. I film I am sure you don't need to do anything but get a large aperture lens on any camera slr or folder or view camera it is all the same as far as I know if you get one large enough you get depth of field control. Of course they will tell you that it is the same with digital but to get the large enough aperture you need the 1000 camera.

Most people dont want to invest even 40 bucks in a film camera these days. Which is why I bought a nice slr body for 30 bucks and was the only one interested.

 

[ftops]

i, on the contrary, focus on a picture that fits into a pre-desired depth of field. it simply puts the focus on what i want it to be on, and not everything thats going on in the shot.

now, if im taking a picture of a landscape, or maybe a series of flags or structures that are at extremely varying focusing distances, ill change the aperture accordingly.

another advantage of a lower aperture (and essentially shallower depth of field) is faster shutter speeds, which usually results in sharper images.

 

[pubius]

whoa. this got to be a long discussion, a long multi-faceted discussion. thanks to all that helped out with ideas. i was still trying to stick within the confines of what i had originally proposed, a digital p&s that can achieve the shortest focal length.

as far as using photoshop to create a false short focal length goes, i have no doubt that i could do that. in fact, i've done it, professionally, countless times. but that takes a serious amount of time. and anyone that says otherwise is doing a questionable job at it.

so, i'd rather avoid that if at all possible.

i think i got some pretty good info from everyone though.
so thanks again.

 

[Mohain]

I must admit to not reading all of the thread (bad me) and sorry if this has been said before (I had a quick scan and could see mention of it) but the Sony DSC-R1 has an APS sized sensor and f2.8 at the wide end and f4.8 at the tele end of the zoom so you should be able to get a pretty shallow DOF with that.

Anyway, sorry for the interruption, carry on ...