Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Digital SLR

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 3:21:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I've had a Canon Rebel for over 10 years and I love the depth of filed I can
get with it. My Canon S110 takes great pictures, but I can't get the same
effect.

So my question is, does a digital SLR, like the Canon Digital Rebel give you
the same control over depth of filed with the convenience of digital? Or is
there a less expensive way to achieve the same effect?

Thanks.

More about : digital slr

Anonymous
January 31, 2005 3:21:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Art,

A digital SLR (and good ps digicams) will give you aperture priority mode.
This is the key to depth of field. (well, that and/or manual mode). IMO
slr's always, and I use "always" loosely, offer more control over the image
than digicams. They key to dof (depth of field) is being able to control
the aperture of the lens. I don't know of a digital SLR that does not allow
the photog to change the aperture. What would be the point? :) 

All that being said, most of the good digicams will offer this too. The key
would be to try it out and see.

Chris


On 1/31/05 7:21 AM, in article
RopLd.3286$S3.2719@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net, "Art"
<yardline@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I've had a Canon Rebel for over 10 years and I love the depth of filed I can
> get with it. My Canon S110 takes great pictures, but I can't get the same
> effect.
>
> So my question is, does a digital SLR, like the Canon Digital Rebel give you
> the same control over depth of filed with the convenience of digital? Or is
> there a less expensive way to achieve the same effect?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 3:42:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Art" <yardline@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RopLd.3286$S3.2719@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> I've had a Canon Rebel for over 10 years and I love the depth of filed I
> can get with it. My Canon S110 takes great pictures, but I can't get the
> same effect.
>
> So my question is, does a digital SLR, like the Canon Digital Rebel give
> you the same control over depth of filed with the convenience of digital?

Yes

Or is
> there a less expensive way to achieve the same effect?
>
> Thanks.
>
Related resources
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 7:57:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Art" <yardline@hotmail.com> writes:
>I've had a Canon Rebel for over 10 years and I love the depth of filed I can
>get with it. My Canon S110 takes great pictures, but I can't get the same
>effect.

That's because the S110 has a sensor that is about 1/7 as large as a 35
mm film frame. To get the same field of view, you're using a lens focal
length that is about 1/7 as well (so a "normal" lens is 7 mm). This
gives 7 times as much depth of field at the same f/number. Even wide
open, the DOF is enormous. Shallow DOF is not possible.

>So my question is, does a digital SLR, like the Canon Digital Rebel give you
>the same control over depth of filed with the convenience of digital? Or is
>there a less expensive way to achieve the same effect?

A full-frame DSLR will give you the same DOF as a full-frame 35mm film
camera. Unfortunately, these are quite expensive. The Digital Rebel
uses a sensor that is about 60% of the size of a 35 frame, so it gives
about 1.6 times as much DOF at the same f/number. That means you'll
have to open up one more stop to get the same DOF, unless you're already
shooting with the lens wide open.

Dave
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 12:57:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Everything being equal (focal length, distance from lens and aperture) you
should get the same depth of field with a digital camera.


"Art" <yardline@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RopLd.3286$S3.2719@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> I've had a Canon Rebel for over 10 years and I love the depth of filed I
> can get with it. My Canon S110 takes great pictures, but I can't get the
> same effect.
>
> So my question is, does a digital SLR, like the Canon Digital Rebel give
> you the same control over depth of filed with the convenience of digital?
> Or is there a less expensive way to achieve the same effect?
>
> Thanks.
>
February 1, 2005 2:47:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:21:05 GMT, "Art" <yardline@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I've had a Canon Rebel for over 10 years and I love the depth of filed I can
>get with it. My Canon S110 takes great pictures, but I can't get the same
>effect.
>
>So my question is, does a digital SLR, like the Canon Digital Rebel give you
>the same control over depth of filed with the convenience of digital? Or is
>there a less expensive way to achieve the same effect?
>
>Thanks.
>

A 50mm lens on a DSLR wil give the exact same DOF as a 50mm lens on a film
camera set to the same aperture. The only difference is that the digital sensor
is smaller, so the angle of view is smaller. To get the same angle of view you'd
need use a shorter focal length - by a factor of about 1.6 for the dRebel.

You can also simulate low DOF by manipulation in PhotoShop, but it ain't easy to
get a good result.
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 2:47:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 23:47:40 +1100, DJ <dontemail@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

>On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:21:05 GMT, "Art" <yardline@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I've had a Canon Rebel for over 10 years and I love the depth of filed I can
>>get with it. My Canon S110 takes great pictures, but I can't get the same
>>effect.
>>
>>So my question is, does a digital SLR, like the Canon Digital Rebel give you
>>the same control over depth of filed with the convenience of digital? Or is
>>there a less expensive way to achieve the same effect?
>>
>
>A 50mm lens on a DSLR wil give the exact same DOF as a 50mm lens on a film
>camera set to the same aperture. The only difference is that the digital sensor
>is smaller, so the angle of view is smaller. To get the same angle of view you'd
>need use a shorter focal length - by a factor of about 1.6 for the dRebel.

The DOF part of this statement is incorrect.

I use a lot of Acronyms here, so briefly:

CoC - Circle of Confusion
DoF - Depth of Field
NL - Near Limit (Closest subject still in focus)
FL - Far Limit (Furthest subject still in focus)
HF - Hyperfocal Distance. (Optimum focus point to maximize DoF depth)
AoV - Angle of View

CoC on a DSLR with a smaller-than-35mm sensor is different to regular
35mm. For a typical 1.5 to 1.6 sensor factor your DSLR DOF at f8 will
appear similar to an f11 shot on a 35mm camera if you adjust lenses to
give similar Angle of view..

i.e. DSLR's have a deeper DOF than 35mm SLRs when AoV is matched
between the cameras.

Comparing an SLR to an DSLR with a 1.5 sensor ratio and fictitious
lenses to give identical AoVs using a f5.6 aperture lens focused at
8m:

A SLR with a 108mm NL=7.233m FL=8.949m (Depth: 1.716m)
A DSLR with a 72mm NL=6.830m FL=9.653m = (Depth: 2.823m)

Even if you stick with the same lens on both cameras as DJ suggests,
say a 50mm f4 focused at 6m, the DoF's differ significantly:

SLR 50mm f4. HF=22.3m NL=4.73m FL=8.18 (Depth: 3.45m)
DSLR 50mm f4. HF=31.3m NL=5.04m FL=7.41 (Depth: 2.37m)

You can use any DOF calculator that allows you to enter a custom CoC
to represent your sensor size to learn the differences.

Here's how you can look-up your camera's Coc:
http://dfleming.ameranet.com/digital_coc.html

And here is a DOF page + calculator Alan Browne found previously:
http://www.conent.com/ConAdv/Encyclopaedia/Photography/...

>You can also simulate low DOF by manipulation in PhotoShop, but it ain't easy to
>get a good result.

Yes, nothing beats doing it on the camera.

--
Owamanga!
February 1, 2005 2:47:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
>
> AoV - Angle of View
>
> i.e. DSLR's have a deeper DOF than 35mm SLRs when AoV is matched
> between the cameras.


So basically you will need an (expensive) super-fast lens to get blurred
background nicely.
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 2:47:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 1/31/05 3:51 PM, in article Kaadne1qz5r7B2PcRVn-rg@speakeasy.net, "paul"
<paul@not.net> wrote:

> Owamanga wrote:
>>
>> AoV - Angle of View
>>
>> i.e. DSLR's have a deeper DOF than 35mm SLRs when AoV is matched
>> between the cameras.
>
>
> So basically you will need an (expensive) super-fast lens to get blurred
> background nicely.

Paul,

My primary lenses for portraits are a 50 1.4 USM and 100 2.8 Macro. Both of
these yield a nice blurry background with excellend dof coverage for the
model.

CM
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 2:47:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul <paul@not.net> writes:
>> i.e. DSLR's have a deeper DOF than 35mm SLRs when AoV is matched
>> between the cameras.

>So basically you will need an (expensive) super-fast lens to get blurred
>background nicely.

Only if you'd already be shooting wide open with the less-fast lens.
The difference between the less-expensive DSLRs and full-frame 35 film
only requires about one more stop open aperture for equal DOF. If you
were shooting at f/2.8, use f/2 instead.

Dave
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 2:47:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:51:50 -0800, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:

>Owamanga wrote:
>>
>> AoV - Angle of View
>>
>> i.e. DSLR's have a deeper DOF than 35mm SLRs when AoV is matched
>> between the cameras.
>
>So basically you will need an (expensive) super-fast lens to get blurred
>background nicely.

No, (to quote Geoffrey Rush in Shakespear In Love), it all works out
in the end somehow, we don't know how or why, but it always does.
[Can't remember the exact line..]

The difference is not noticeable. It's one to two stops max. For
whatever reason, it really is not a problem.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 3:27:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> writes:

> Everything being equal (focal length, distance from lens and aperture) you
> should get the same depth of field with a digital camera.

And circle-of-confusion value you chose. But to get pictures with the
same visible amount of depth of field, you need a smaller circle of
confusion for the smaller digital sensors.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
!