No camera purchased yet. No questions to ask.

Discussion in 'Photography' started by jon_banquer, Jan 4, 2013.

  1. jon_banquer

    Whiskers Guest

    There is no such thing as 'good' or 'bad' depth of field, only
    'appropriate' or otherwise for a particular image - as judged by whoever
    the image is meant to please.

    There are techniques, and equipment, that can give you better control over
    the depth of field in a particular photo.

    By and large, point and shoot cameras are not intended to give the user
    much control over anything, and usually have lenses with relatively small
    maximum aperture (which means you are restricted in how shallow you can
    make the depth of field) and digital P&S cameras usually have small image
    sensors too (which also limits how shallow you can make the depth of
    field).

    Cheaper or smaller P&S cameras exploit deep depth of field by having few
    'focus distances' - or just one, and an instruction to 'stand at least x
    feet away from your subject'. That's how they manage to be cheap, or
    small, or both.

    In the days of press photographers going out with "Speed Graphic" or
    "Rollieflex" cameras, the basic rule of exposure was "f/8 and be there" -
    almost any picture taken at that aperture would be just about usable by the
    printer, and almost any picture is better than no picture if it's the sort
    of story that needs a picture or if you've got the only one. That's an
    example where extensive depth of field is definitely a very good thing.
     
    Whiskers, Jan 10, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  2. jon_banquer

    Peter Guest

    True. You get more DOF with a P&S.
     
    Peter, Jan 10, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  3. jon_banquer

    Peter Guest

    The whole point of my post was that there are times when more DOF is
    desirable.
     
    Peter, Jan 10, 2013
  4. jon_banquer

    Noons Guest

    Nownow, Charles. You trying to make sense to a troll?

    I await your "excellent" photos of the same.
    Until then, eat shit and die, troll.

    It's called trolling. Didn't you know that's what most of the
    fuckwits here do?

    **** off, troll.
     
    Noons, Jan 10, 2013
  5. jon_banquer

    Noons Guest

    Agreed indeed. Thought so.
     
    Noons, Jan 10, 2013
  6. jon_banquer

    Savageduck Guest

    That depends on what you define as a P&S. There are many compact
    cameras in the same size range as the pocketable P&S cameras which give
    you aperture priority, shutter priority, and manual exposure options
    which will permit you to obtain a perfectly acceptable DOF range from
    deep to shallow.
    ...and not bad bokeh (that is that out of focus background blur). The
    quality of that bokeh is very lens dependent based on many factors in
    the specifications of your particular lens choice.

    Usually, many fast (low f-number) lenses intended for portraits when
    used wide open are expected to produce quality "creamy" bokeh and a
    shallow DOF. one such lens is the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4.

    While nice "creamy" bokeh and shallow DOF along with that blurred
    background can be very desirable in many situations it should not be a
    standard to set for all photography. Most of the time you are going to
    be looking for a deep DOF for non-portraiture work, and a compromise
    for everything in between.
    So sometimes it is great to have and use that shallow DOF,
    < http://db.tt/yLvl3xvg >
    and sometimes you need something else;
    < http://db.tt/GvAFmtLY >

    Shallow DOF is not particularly desirable in landscape photography for example.
    < http://db.tt/QTQOQMV1 >

    So ultimately it is not a good idea to lock yourself into
    generalization dictated by one particular tutor regardless of his depth
    of knowledge and his ability to impart that to you. You need to
    establish the type of photography you are going to spend the most time
    on, and then decide what excursions into portraiture, macro, landscape,
    street you want to explore.
     
    Savageduck, Jan 10, 2013
  7. jon_banquer

    Noons Guest

    Original? I'm sorry, I don't get it. What you posted was an
    original?
    The moon shot is cropped only to square and to get rid of too much
    dark.
    A 500mm mirror lens is not enough to get the moon filling up the
    sensor.
    Otherwise, it's off the camera.
     
    Noons, Jan 10, 2013
  8. jon_banquer

    Savageduck Guest

    There seems to be a DB issue with some of the shortened URL's.
    <
    https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Public/Shared Images/SA-Images/DSC_3491Aw.jpg?w=cf25ef37
     
    Savageduck, Jan 10, 2013
  9. jon_banquer

    jon_banquer Guest

    Thanks. I read over your post a few times. I agree that I should not
    lock myself into just one perceptive although I admit to really liking
    Ben Long and how he teaches.

    "There are many compact cameras in the same size range as the
    pocketable P&S cameras which give you aperture priority, shutter
    priority, and manual exposure options which will permit you to obtain
    a perfectly acceptable DOF range from deep to shallow."

    Do you mean a Micro Four Thirds camera?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Four_Thirds_system
     
    jon_banquer, Jan 10, 2013
  10. jon_banquer

    Savageduck Guest

    No. I mean a plain vanilla compact such as the Canon G11/G12/G15, S110,
    or Nikon P7000, P7700.
     
    Savageduck, Jan 10, 2013
  11. jon_banquer

    Noons Guest

    A m4/3 camera is not in the category of p&s or pocketable.
    It's light, but its main design principle is being a small system
    camera.
    But like the duck says, these are not absolutes.
    There are some p&s cameras and some compacts that have full controls
    and lenses capable of reasonable if not very good shallow DOF.
    It's a matter of informed choice. The online review sites usually
    help in that selection.
    Of course: with system cameras - be that m4/3 or dslrs - the choice is
    much easier - it's all down to the lens you mount on them.
     
    Noons, Jan 10, 2013
  12. Quite. DOF also goes in and out of fashion.

    I'd like more DOF control on my G9 for portraits but some people like the
    wicked DOF on some urban landscape shots.

    Too much shallow DOF can get on my nerves. I hate the way some people
    overuse it or, like TV shows when the movie look became hot, get
    self-conscious about shifting DOF in video.
     
    Charles E. Hardwidge, Jan 11, 2013
  13. A depth of field calculator can be used to illustrate the relationship
    between sensor size, lens, and depth of field.

    http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

    But, yes. I agree everything is a matter of informed choice and artistic
    sensibilities. I also think this position helps move things on from petty
    nitpicking and some of the snottier attitudes that go around. Like, who
    cares?

    My G9 is good for urban landscapes and has a good sweetspot for daylight
    photography (and surprisingly good with snow). Less so for portraits and
    appalling at darkly lit scenes in bars which I rarely if ever do anyway. An
    SLR would give me more options but would take away options from somewhere
    else. It's a compromise I can live with but accept other people may have
    different priorities. I don't have a smartphone (yet) and they open up other
    options some people find very suitable to their needs.
     
    Charles E. Hardwidge, Jan 11, 2013
  14. People can be dicks and you can buy into that but I made a choice to manage
    the situation. I have my own reasons plus they clue up or they don't.
     
    Charles E. Hardwidge, Jan 11, 2013
  15. jon_banquer

    Peter Guest

    Peter, Jan 11, 2013
  16. jon_banquer

    Savageduck Guest

    Try the Canon S100. Within the constraints of a small sensor it does a
    pretty good job for a pocketable size camera:
    <
    http://masters.galleries.dpreview.c...0194&Signature=6trATApAlQGz/jD36jlhjGC1w2M=or
    < http://tinyurl.com/aum236a >
    < http://tinyurl.com/akz2yck >
    < http://tinyurl.com/bxml9h3 >
    < http://tinyurl.com/ahsfosp >
     
    Savageduck, Jan 11, 2013
  17. jon_banquer

    Peter Guest

    Peter, Jan 11, 2013
  18. jon_banquer

    Savageduck Guest

    Strange those were from dpreview.

    Anyway here are some of those I downloaded to DB.
    < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/1618037.jpg >
    < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/1618024.jpg >

    ....and in questionable light for a compact.
    Sure!

    The reality is no small sensor digital is going to match APC-S or FF,
    but they will certainly do in a pinch.
    I have been quite happy with my G11 as a companion to my D300S. I have
    also looked for something a little more pocketable, which is why I
    looked at the S100, but now the S110 with a slightly larger sensor is
    about to be released.
     
    Savageduck, Jan 11, 2013
  19. jon_banquer

    Peter Guest

    Possibly DPreview, likes me about as much as I trust their reviews
    There was still a lot of DOF falloff. For the shooting conditions it is
    designed for: a P&S is fine.
    I will probably use my iPhone as a pocket companion.
     
    Peter, Jan 12, 2013
  20. jon_banquer

    Savageduck Guest

    That is my last resort camera, but it also does in a pinch.
    ....and has a few other tricks it can play. Hell! I have even used it
    for one of my SI shots.
    < http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/143909943 >
     
    Savageduck, Jan 12, 2013
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.