According to "Understanding Exposure", larger apertures (small F-numbers) on fixed-lens cameras are equivalent to much smaller apertures (large F-numbers) on SLR cameras. "Your fixed-lens digital camera is hopelessly plagued with the uncanny ability to render a tremendous amount of depth of field." (page 46) He says that f/2.8 on a fixed-lens is equivalent to f/11 on SLR. He goes on to say that f/4 is equivalent to f/16, f/5.6 -> f/22, f/8 -> f/22, f/11 -> f/64. "Those of us who use SLRs can only dream of the vast depth of field that would result from apertures like f/64." So apparently an aperture of a fixed-lens camera is equivalent to an aperture four stops higher on a SLR where depth of field is concerned. Why is this? I would think that SLR cameras which cost hundreds more then typical fixed-lens cameras would be superior in all ways. My camera is a fixed-lens and goes up to f/13.6 so my depth of field at that aperture must be really large?