Compact camera that can get the shortest depth of field?

markc · Dec 22, 2006

I should have been more specific, but didn't mean to say that you couldn't blur the background at all. They mentioned a small DOF specifically. There's a huge difference to my eye between f1.8 and f11 with my gear. You won't get this with f11.

I also doubt that someone could get a convincing smooth gradient to the bokeh when something is angles off into the distance without a lot of work. This shot would be an easier one, but not so when you have intricate structures involved. Even this one would require a lot of tracing out of the grass blades.

mysteryscribe · Dec 22, 2006

Tell you what I got a lot of time you post a sharp one and I'll make it a short depth of field for you. Lets see how many people can tell the diference.

Don Simon · Dec 23, 2006

Leaving compact p&s cameras aside for a moment, I'm not convinced the bokeh I get with my 50mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/2 could be convincingly simulated in software, at least not without a lot of effort. Btw I'm not trying to show off or say you need expensive gear; each of those lenses cost about $50. But if I wanted shallow DOF and pleasing bokeh I would do it with a prime lens (with film if not digital body) rather than a compact zoom p&s with or without software.

darich · Dec 23, 2006

ZaphodB said:
Leaving compact p&s cameras aside for a moment, I'm not convinced the bokeh I get with my 50mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/2 could be convincingly simulated in software, at least not without a lot of effort.

Like Mark , i find that any false blurring edited into an image to make it look like a shallow depth of field is obvious. It may depend on who did the work (obviously) and i don't doubt the actual image would have an effect on how it comes out.

It could be that your eye is more perceptive than you think and fake shallow DOF looks fake because the eye can tell that from the main subject. Could be wrong there though.

I still think it looks fake....at least it has in the shots i've seen.

Ducks_own · Dec 23, 2006

yeah, I still haven't gon aboutlearning all the stuff like DOF... But my camera's f=7.9 to 23.7mm... For the record, it's a casio EX-Z120.

RMThompson · Dec 23, 2006

Personally I use a Canon A610 point and shoot, and it is decent with DOF.

Check out some of my pics here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmthompson/

Some of them with a decent DOF:

markc · Dec 23, 2006

RMThompson said:
Personally I use a Canon A610 point and shoot, and it is decent with DOF.

That's better than I expected, though it looks like you are rather close to the subjects in all of those cases. I wonder how it would do when the subject is 12' away or more, which is the kind of situation I was talking about. I like the use of the wide angle in the trumpet one, but for the second one, I'd prefer a longer lens, which would put you further back.

markc · Dec 23, 2006

mysteryscribe said:
Tell you what I got a lot of time you post a sharp one and I'll make it a short depth of field for you. Lets see how many people can tell the diference.

Sounds good, though I don't have one handy. Most everything I shoot already has a short DOF.

mysteryscribe · Dec 23, 2006

I'll be around and the offer is always good.

mysteryscribe · Dec 23, 2006

Like it or not I bet I can pass this off in the gallery as a short dept of field shot and very few if any will notice that it isnt.

RMThompson · Dec 23, 2006

markc said:
That's better than I expected, though it looks like you are rather close to the subjects in all of those cases. I wonder how it would do when the subject is 12' away or more, which is the kind of situation I was talking about. I like the use of the wide angle in the trumpet one, but for the second one, I'd prefer a longer lens, which would put you further back.

Check out my FLICKR.

A lot of those are cropped very tight too, giving teh illusion I was close. I was almost 2 feet away from the fish.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmthompson/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmthompson/

markc · Dec 23, 2006

Not to be picky, but 2' is very close. The minimum focus on my 50mm is 1.5', and my 85mm won't even focus under 3'.

darich · Dec 24, 2006

mysteryscribe said:
Like it or not I bet I can pass this off in the gallery as a short dept of field shot and very few if any will notice that it isnt.

A lot of people would be fooled but on one of the melons (?) the bottom edge is blurred and is inconsistent with shallow DOF.
Additionally, the ledge they're sitting on is consistently blurred - in other words the surface nearer the camera looks as blurred as the surface at the melons but in real life it would be more blurred nearer the camera.

You're right to say that most people wouldn't spot the difference though and to be honest it's pretty good - it's not obviously fake but on close examination it can be seen. If that image wasn't posted in this thread then i wouldn't give it another glance as being false.

mysteryscribe · Dec 24, 2006

thanks and the truth is>>> if you were trying to make a true art fake you would have done even more.... So it is not only possible to fake depth of field the same is true with anything.

Point being we buy equipment for lots of reasons and fool ourselves about the real reason. I have to have a whatever to do this when in reality you dont at all. I have this conversation with my son in law all the time.

RMThompson · Dec 24, 2006

mysteryscribe said:
thanks and the truth is>>> if you were trying to make a true art fake you would have done even more.... So it is not only possible to fake depth of field the same is true with anything.

Point being we buy equipment for lots of reasons and fool ourselves about the real reason. I have to have a whatever to do this when in reality you dont at all. I have this conversation with my son in law all the time.

You are 100% correct here. I always hear people telling me that I won't achieve a certain effect until I purchase *magical item*.

However it's not true.

Look at this picture of mine:

If you didn't know me, and I asked someone to guess the equipment used they would guess a DSLR, a strobe setup, and a white muslin background, for a total of, say, 1500 dollars worth of equipment.

Truth is, I used my PnS Canon A610 (as always) and the same WalMart lamp Ive been using for the past two months. I did purchase a halogen additional light, but didn't use it for this shot.

The background is a fuzzy blanket that I slept on last night. It's really comfortable.

Of course some post processing work went into this, but nothing that Picasa 2 couldnt handle, minus adding the border.