point n shoot with good depth of view

[Helen B]

The full frame equivalent f-number, for DoF comparisons, of the RX100 wide open is lower than 5, not over 8.

 

[qwertyjjj]

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.

A dSLR is even bulkier than the Canon G12 I have, that's the main issue.
RX100 sounds like a good option but from those pictures, although the bokeh looks better, it might not be enough.
Difficult decision...for me there is no fun in photography is you have to carry around a bulky item.

 

[enzodm]

Difficult decision...for me there is no fun in photography is you have to carry around a bulky item.

So, forget foreground/background separation. It is not needed to do good photographs. It is needed to do some kind of good photographs.

Anyway, take a look at some mirrorless, which should be slightly smaller, however you have always to consider a couple of lenses, which might be "bulky".
Or: consider complementing a P&S with a dSLR (usually is the reverse). E.g., when you want to shoot portraits you do the effort of bringing around a bulky item, if not, no need.
Or find an old used Olympus dSLR (E 410, E 420...) - smaller than any other dSLR, the right lens, and that's all.
This tool might help you in understanding sizes before checking in a shop: Compare camera dimensions side by side

 

[qwertyjjj]

Difficult decision...for me there is no fun in photography is you have to carry around a bulky item.

So, forget foreground/background separation. It is not needed to do good photographs. It is needed to do some kind of good photographs.

Anyway, take a look at some mirrorless, which should be slightly smaller, however you have always to consider a couple of lenses, which might be "bulky".
Or: consider complementing a P&S with a dSLR (usually is the reverse). E.g., when you want to shoot portraits you do the effort of bringing around a bulky item, if not, no need.
Or find an old used Olympus dSLR (E 410, E 420...) - smaller than any other dSLR, the right lens, and that's all.
This tool might help you in understanding sizes before checking in a shop: Compare camera dimensions side by side

Thanks - useful site.
By portraits, do you mean close ups? As in...you can only do bokeh on close ups?

 

[enzodm]

Thanks - useful site.
By portraits, do you mean close ups? As in...you can only do bokeh on close ups?

I mean portraits, as one of the situations where often is better to blur background.
If you want to do portraits AND, let's say, wild animals pictures, you most likely need two different lenses, one of which is really bulky

 

[qwertyjjj]

Thanks - useful site.
By portraits, do you mean close ups? As in...you can only do bokeh on close ups?

I mean portraits, as one of the situations where often is better to blur background.
If you want to do portraits AND, let's say, wild animals pictures, you most likely need two different lenses, one of which is really bulky

So, if I was to sell the G12 and get a Sony RX100 + an Olympus E420 combo, isn;t there a chance the RX100 would take better photos than the E420 as it is newer?

managed to do a foreground blur with the G12 but background blur seems harder:

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[Helen B]

I have an RX100. It's an excellent camera for its size, but its shallow DoF capabilities are limited. As you zoom in from 28 mm equivalent, the f-number rises quickly. Image quality is good at f/1.8 and f/2 when at 28 mm equivalent, but it doesn't get really good until close to f/5.6. I like to use it between f/4 and f/5.6, with f/5.6 being the best, but I actually prefer deep focus to shallow focus most of the time.

I have found that DxO is the best raw converter for the RX100, of the ones I have tried (ACR/Lightroom and Raw Developer). The DxO 'module' for the RX100 is very good, and corrects distortion and aberrations very well. Fortunately you only need the cheap version of DxO for this camera. The lens is quite simple for a zoom, and it looks like the importance of correcting distortion optically has been a low priority, thanks to the ease of correcting it during raw conversion.

 

[qwertyjjj]

I have an RX100. It's an excellent camera for its size, but its shallow DoF capabilities are limited. As you zoom in from 28 mm equivalent, the f-number rises quickly. Image quality is good at f/1.8 and f/2 when at 28 mm equivalent, but it doesn't get really good until close to f/5.6. I like to use it between f/4 and f/5.6, with f/5.6 being the best, but I actually prefer deep focus to shallow focus most of the time.

I have found that DxO is the best raw converter for the RX100, of the ones I have tried (ACR/Lightroom and Raw Developer). The DxO 'module' for the RX100 is very good, and corrects distortion and aberrations very well. Fortunately you only need the cheap version of DxO for this camera. The lens is quite simple for a zoom, and it looks like the importance of correcting distortion optically has been a low priority, thanks to the ease of correcting it during raw conversion.

is it better than the G12 though?

 

[brunerww]

Hi qwertyjjj - after all the discussion of aperture and sensor size, back to your original question. Is there such a thing as a (fixed lens) point and shoot camera that is easy to carry, and which will also give you "blurry backgrounds" in your photos?

The answer is yes, but they are all relatively expensive compared to conventional small sensor point and shoot cameras.

Here are the new fixed lens P&S cameras with large sensors that can do the job.

$648 Sony RX-100 (1" sensor) - (£449 in the UK). Best pocketable camera on the market, according to many reviewers. Here is what this camera can do (note the shallow depth of field in many of the closeup and portrait shots): Flickr: The Sony Cyber-shot RX100 Pool

$699 Canon G1-X (1.5" sensor) - (£554 in the UK). If you like your G12, you will like this camera. It is about the same size, with very similar ergonomics - but with the larger sensor, you will have shallower depth of field at equivalent focal lengths and apertures. Here is what this camera can do (again, most shots are wide, but there are a few portraits and closeups showing shallow DoF, like this one): Flickr: The Canon PowerShot G1-X Pool

$2798 Sony RX-1 (full frame sensor). This pocket camera has the same size sensor as professional full frame cameras, and will give you similar shallow depth of field. But it will cost you Here is what this amazing (and amazingly expensive) camera can do: Flickr: The RX1 Pool

Sorry there are no inexpensive adapter solutions for your G12, but I hope this is helpful.

Bill

 

[enzodm]

Hi qwertyjjj - after all the discussion of aperture and sensor size, back to your original question. Is there such a thing as a (fixed lens) point and shoot camera that is easy to carry, and which will also give you "blurry backgrounds" in your photos?

The answer is yes, but they are all relatively expensive compared to conventional small sensor point and shoot cameras.

if you really read the rest of the thread, the concrete answer beyond news items is between "maybe" and "only in part".

 

[Helen B]

Why should he read the thread? He is only here to pimp his blog, not to actually read what other people have contributed and then to continue in the discussion.

I have an RX100. It's an excellent camera for its size, but its shallow DoF capabilities are limited. As you zoom in from 28 mm equivalent, the f-number rises quickly. Image quality is good at f/1.8 and f/2 when at 28 mm equivalent, but it doesn't get really good until close to f/5.6. I like to use it between f/4 and f/5.6, with f/5.6 being the best, but I actually prefer deep focus to shallow focus most of the time.

I have found that DxO is the best raw converter for the RX100, of the ones I have tried (ACR/Lightroom and Raw Developer). The DxO 'module' for the RX100 is very good, and corrects distortion and aberrations very well. Fortunately you only need the cheap version of DxO for this camera. The lens is quite simple for a zoom, and it looks like the importance of correcting distortion optically has been a low priority, thanks to the ease of correcting it during raw conversion.

is it better than the G12 though?

It depends on what you mean by 'better'. As I mentioned, the shallow DoF capabilities of the RX100 are limited. They are usable, however, and they are better than the G12 - which has a smaller sensor and a higher minimum f-number at the wider end of the zoom range (crop factor 2.7 vs over 4; 1.8 vs 2.8). The RX100 lens is not a fantastic performer wide open*, but an 'environmental' portrait shot wide open and printed at 13" x 19" looks good, with a pleasantly out-of-focus background (and superb dynamic range, which often allows you to darken the highlights in the background without them looking featureless. Shallow DoF is not the only thing you need to look at.

*The lens does not have to be bitingly sharp for a portrait, of course, and the smoothness that the 20 Mpixel sensor provides is excellent.

 

[brunerww]

Why should he read the thread? He is only here to pimp his blog, not to actually read what other people have contributed and then to continue in the discussion.

I take your point. I have removed the reference to the blog. I did read the thread and was genuinely trying to be helpful.

 

[Solarflare]

Is there btw a digital camera that can archieve even more shallow depth of field than the 85mm f/1.2 on full frame Canon ?

The full frame equivalent f-number, for DoF comparisons, of the RX100 wide open is lower than 5, not over 8.

Well, technically, yeah, but thats at the 28mm equivalent end of focal length, where there is a lot of depth of field from the short focal length.

 

[Helen B]

The full frame equivalent f-number, for DoF comparisons, of the RX100 wide open is lower than 5, not over 8.

Well, technically, yeah, but thats at the 28mm equivalent end of focal length, where there is a lot of depth of field from the short focal length.

Yes, I was only responding to this, which looked incorrect:

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.

 

[TCampbell]

So, if I was to sell the G12 and get a Sony RX100 + an Olympus E420 combo, isn;t there a chance the RX100 would take better photos than the E420 as it is newer?

Not in any meaningful way. Does one point & shoot (even an advanced point & shoot) have better "bokeh" quality than another? Well technically "yes" but they're all so weak that even the "best" of them is still probably not even close to being what you want.

If you want strong out-of-focus backgrounds you _need_ a lens with a combination of the following:

a) long focal length
b) low focal ratio
c) well-rounded aperture shape

You must have ALL of those simultaneously... not just some of those attributes. That's very easy to get in a camera with removable lenses. There are lots of choices for DSLR cameras that provide the qualities necessary to create gorgeous out-of-focus backgrounds (or foregrounds).

You're looking for this out-of-focus background effect with a sharp subject (quickly sifting through any of my flickr shots for anything that shows the effect):


Cup o' Joe by Tim Campbell1, on Flickr

That's done with a DSLR using a 70-200mm lens (I think it was at about 150mm focal length at the time) AND using f/2.8 (that f/2.8 part is VERY important). I have lenses that will generate even more background blur. It's easy with a DSLR and the right lens. With a point & shoot, the zoom is typically variable focal ratio. By the time you zoom in to get the long focal length you LOSE the low-focal ratio (the lens works against itself.)

With a point & shoot (even a high-end point & shoot) these effects are tiny. I doubt you'll be happy with any of them.