point n shoot with good depth of view

[table1349]

If switching lenses for you is a problem then you'll never get the DOF you are looking for. Come on, join the DSLR gang lol. I know what you want though which is portability, haven't seen any amazing ones lately because I hardly look at point and shoots haha. Will there ever be one with an aperture of f/2.8 that has a fixed zooming lens? Idk the future.....it's not impossible I'm most certain.

Do you ever post about things you are actually knowledgeable about? There are plenty of point and shoots with sub f/2.8 apertures.

Not anymore, he was banned yesterday.

 

[cool09]

The real question here is why is it why do you want this narrow field of depth so much? What's your objective and what do you shoot?

 

[swiftparkour94]

Do you ever post about things you are actually knowledgeable about? There are plenty of point and shoots with sub f/2.8 apertures.

I was told that the lowest is f/4 and I've never seen any that low.

 

[The_Traveler]

Do you ever post about things you are actually knowledgeable about? There are plenty of point and shoots with sub f/2.8 apertures.

I was told that the lowest is f/4 and I've never seen any that low.

So if you aren't aware of something, it doesn't exist?

 

[qwertyjjj]

If switching lenses for you is a problem then you'll never get the DOF you are looking for. Come on, join the DSLR gang lol. I know what you want though which is portability, haven't seen any amazing ones lately because I hardly look at point and shoots haha. Will there ever be one with an aperture of f/2.8 that has a fixed zooming lens? Idk the future.....it's not impossible I'm most certain.

Do you ever post about things you are actually knowledgeable about? There are plenty of point and shoots with sub f/2.8 apertures.

The Canon G12 is supposed to have f 2.8 but in practice, it doesn't allow you to get that low...
I occasionally get a nice photo with focus on the subject and blur either in front or behind but you have to get very close, this isn't always possible.

 

[fjrabon]

The Canon G12 is supposed to have f 2.8 but in practice, it doesn't allow you to get that low...
I occasionally get a nice photo with focus on the subject and blur either in front or behind but you have to get very close, this isn't always possible.

My Lumix has f/2.0 that I use pretty frequently. It won't give you shallow DoF because of the angle of view and sensor size, but it's definitely f/2.0.

 

[qwertyjjj]

So, a DSLR is my only option to get shallow DOF and blurred backgrounds?
Something like the Canon EOS 1100D?

 

[enzodm]

The Canon G12 is supposed to have f 2.8 but in practice, it doesn't allow you to get that low...

because f/2.8 is just at the zoom short end, as you can read in front of your lens.

Anyway, even at f/2.8 DoF is not what you would have on a dSLR. When looking at DoFMaster data, remember that the real focal length of your zoom is 6.1-30.5mm.
To have some shallow DoF, look for the newest breed of compact cameras with large sensors - e.g. G1X, Sony RX100, Fuji X100, etc. Be prepared to spend at least like an entry level dSLR...

 

[Ysarex89 83]

So, a DSLR is my only option to get shallow DOF and blurred backgrounds?
Something like the Canon EOS 1100D?

In terms of hardware you need two things and you need them both:

1. Lenses with larger apertures, f/2.8 or better f/2 or better f/1.4
2. Cameras with larger recording sensors, APS-C or better full frame, or better 645DF+

Increasingly better on either count requires more of this $$$$$

Joe

 

[fjrabon]

it's a concept that is both simple and complicated at the same time. Basically DoF depends on three things, magnification of the subject, distance to the background and aperture. Aperture is easy enough to understand, lower f stop numbers give less depth of field, bigger ones more. However, that's only 1/3 of the equation. Distance to the background is easy too, further is more out of focus.

Magnification is a bit harder to understand, especially when it comes to sensor size. Essentially this is a combination of your focal length (not corrected for format) and distance to your subject.

So, for example, if I shoot at 200mm with my subject just a few feet away from me, my DoF is going to be razor thin, even if my aperture is at like f/5.6, because the magnification is so great. If I shoot a 11mm lens, at f/2.8, with my subject 100 feet away, practically everything will be in focus, even though it's f/2.8. Magnification is more powerful when it comes to shallow DoF than aperture is.

The issue with small sensors is that what looks like 200mm in the viewfinder, because of the crop, is actually something like 50mm. Even though you're getting the field of view of a 200mm lens, you're not getting the magnification of a 200mm lens.

You can get shallow DoF with point and shoots, you just have to be zoomed in pretty far, and really close to your subject, which means you can only get shallow DoF when you're shooting something really small.

Remember, your most important things when it comes to DoF are focal length and distance to the subject. Aperture is important, but usually less so than those issues.

 

[qwertyjjj]

The Canon G12 is supposed to have f 2.8 but in practice, it doesn't allow you to get that low...

because f/2.8 is just at the zoom short end, as you can read in front of your lens.

Anyway, even at f/2.8 DoF is not what you would have on a dSLR. When looking at DoFMaster data, remember that the real focal length of your zoom is 6.1-30.5mm.
To have some shallow DoF, look for the newest breed of compact cameras with large sensors - e.g. G1X, Sony RX100, Fuji X100, etc. Be prepared to spend at least like an entry level dSLR...

hmm...review of the sony rx100 says shallow DOF is not very easy unless close to the subject, which you can do on any camera, no?

"No real super shallow DOF but it is possible with 1.8 aperture at wide setting up close"

 

[fjrabon]

The Canon G12 is supposed to have f 2.8 but in practice, it doesn't allow you to get that low...

because f/2.8 is just at the zoom short end, as you can read in front of your lens.

Anyway, even at f/2.8 DoF is not what you would have on a dSLR. When looking at DoFMaster data, remember that the real focal length of your zoom is 6.1-30.5mm.
To have some shallow DoF, look for the newest breed of compact cameras with large sensors - e.g. G1X, Sony RX100, Fuji X100, etc. Be prepared to spend at least like an entry level dSLR...

hmm...review of the sony rx100 says shallow DOF is not very easy unless close to the subject, which you can do on any camera, no?

"No real super shallow DOF but it is possible with 1.8 aperture at wide setting up close"

The biggest issue with the RX100 is its variable aperture lens. At the telephoto end you're at f/4.9. So, even though it's a larger sensor, it's a fairly high f/stop.

Ultimately, the best you're going to have with a small-ish camera and shallow DoF is something like a Fuji X-pro or a Leica. Your cheapest route to shallow DoF is actually a cheap dSLR, like a D3100, with a long-ish prime with a lower f/stop.

 

[TCampbell]

You generally wont get that out-of-focus background effect with any point & shoot. You may get a weak version of the effect... but if you're looking for something dramatic with rich quality "bokeh" then a "point & shoot" is probably not what you want.

A DSLR would easily do this. A DSLR body is, of course, larger. If you're worried about size then this may not be a good option (although quality would be great.)

You might look at a mirrorless compact cameras with large sensors. Basically either the Sony NEX or the new Canon EOS "M". These basically have bodies the size of the larger high-end point & shoots (like the G12) except (1) they actually have APS-C sensors in them (the same size as most DSLR cameras) and (2) you can change the lens. That means you can use a lens with a lower focal ratio.

Both Sony and Canon make adapters which allow you to mount DSLR lenses on these cameras as well (increasing your lens selection).

To maximize the effect a lens with a very low focal ratio (the lowest f/__._ value) AND a longer focal length. Just be aware that most "zoom" lenses have "variable" focal ratios. These variable focal ratio zooms generally offer a lower (but not great) focal ratio at the "wide angle" end, but the wide-angle cancels out the effect. At the longer focal lengths, the focal ratio is no longer low enough for the effect to work. Consequently you don't see the effect at any focal length / focal-ratio combination. But if your camera allows you to change lenses then you can buy a lens which does provide a low focal ratio at a long focal length.

 

[enzodm]

hmm...review of the sony rx100 says shallow DOF is not very easy unless close to the subject, which you can do on any camera, no?

"No real super shallow DOF but it is possible with 1.8 aperture at wide setting up close"

yes, is not easy even with it. Here some samples: sony rx100 bokeh - Flickr: Search
Here some samples from Canon G1x: canon g1x bokeh - Flickr: Search

It will never be easy if you stick on a compact camera with non interchangeable lenses. From a budget point of view, best thing is to buy an used dSLR - any, plus... plus a suitable lens (e.g. the typical 50/1.8, cheap). Kit lenses will give you some blur but not much (yet much more than a P&S), depending, as you may have understood from some other posts, from the scene you are depicting.
However, with the budget of one of the mentioned high end P&S, you might easily buy an entry level dSLR or mirrorless.

 

[Solarflare]

Do you ever post about things you are actually knowledgeable about? There are plenty of point and shoots with sub f/2.8 apertures.

I was told that the lowest is f/4 and I've never seen any that low.

"Told" ?

You can google such things, for example:

My Ricoh GR Digital IV has f/1.9 (its a prime lens, so theres no range)

The Sony RX100 has f/1.8-4.9

The Panasonic LX7 (also available as Leica D-Lux 6) has f/1.4-2.3

Mind, though, that relative to full frame format and depth of field, the Sony RX100 is over f/8 at its lower end of the range (28mm Equivalent). Well, suffice to say - thats a LOT of depth of field.