Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Prosumer versatility wins out? Or compactness, or....

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 4:33:57 AM

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

>A good article and an interesting read - highlights the advantages and
>disadvantages of using an all point-and-shoot approach.

When I bought my Canon 20D, I also bought a Powershot A85, thinking of
it as more or less an accessory. But in some cases, that small camera
has given me better results than the SLR. And there are definite
advantages to its availability. I will carry the small camera places
and into situations that the SLR would never go, for a long list of
different reasons. And there is definitely a big difference in
people's perception of different cameras. Sometimes this is beneficial
either way. For instance, the professional-looking SLR on the carbon
fiber tripod says "I mean business" and can be very helpful, but the
same effect can also get in the way -- people react as if threatened,
or else, stop being natural and pose. A point-and-shoot camera in the
same situation can be much more subtle.

Something I miss from the old days, is the way you could do crowd
candids with a reflex camera. People don't expect you're actually
taking pictures if you keep the camera at waist level and don't raise
it to your eye -- not only that, but you're not actually looking in
their direction, which also influences behavior, or can interfere with
the situation you're trying to photograph.

The chances of getting harrassed for shooting with a "snapshot camera"
seem far lower than with a "pro camera" in some scenarios. And there
are so many places where a $300 camera (which the average joe can't
really tell from a $150 camera) is reasonable to carry, but a $1600
lens on a $1200 camera body, a $390 ball head on a $600 tripod, and
your $250 bag, really might not be the best idea to flash around...
There's tons of places you won't even be allowed to go with a pro
camera, where a point-and-shoot in your pocket won't raise any concerns
whatsoever.

There's something about "getting the shot" that involves "having the
camera", and I find this happens often with my PowerShot , where I
wouldn't dream of carrying my 20D.

One other observation that was part of my motivation for getting this
camera, and it's a Canon thing really, the controls translate quite
well between Canon snapshot cameras, and their film and digital SLRs.

I don't know how it is with other brands, but I've been wondering.
Related resources
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 4:37:23 AM

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

> the DoF is that much more.

More than a good wide-angle prime on a DSLR, at corresponding stops?

I've certainly been frustrated by the limitations of both DSLR and
snapshot cameras, and I find that one complements the other nicely, but
I also wonder how much of the DoF benefit is really an effect of a
wider lens?
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 8:21:24 AM

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

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 22:12:11 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>
>>>http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6...
>
>Interesting read. Good discussion of working within the limits and
>taking advantage of the benefits. Is the depth of field really that
>dramatically more?

It's interesting he mentioned having a small digital like the 5060
with interchangeable lenses, small ones. Anyone remember Pentax's
110 SLR? They must be collector's items by now?
His technique of using manual focus is clever too. Another thing he
didn't mention; People don't get too freaked out when you point a
small digital camera at them as opposed to an DSLR with a
big lens. If I was in Iraq, I'd like to keep the locals "at ease."
-Rich
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 11:09:35 AM

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

RichA wrote:
>> http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6...

A good article and an interesting read - highlights the advantages and
disadvantages of using an all point-and-shoot approach. And, yes Paul,
the DoF is that much more.

I support his call at the end for a common battery standard!

David
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 12:10:47 PM

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

James Of Tucson wrote:
>> the DoF is that much more.
>
> More than a good wide-angle prime on a DSLR, at corresponding stops?
>
> I've certainly been frustrated by the limitations of both DSLR and
> snapshot cameras, and I find that one complements the other nicely,
> but I also wonder how much of the DoF benefit is really an effect of a
> wider lens?

As I understand it - it's the actual focal which matters - this is
typically one fifth of the focal length of a DSLR (for the sane FOV), so
DoF is proportially greater at the same f/stop. [I might be wrong here].

David
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 12:10:48 PM

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

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 08:10:47 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:

>James Of Tucson wrote:
>>> the DoF is that much more.
>>
>> More than a good wide-angle prime on a DSLR, at corresponding stops?
>>
>> I've certainly been frustrated by the limitations of both DSLR and
>> snapshot cameras, and I find that one complements the other nicely,
>> but I also wonder how much of the DoF benefit is really an effect of a
>> wider lens?
>
>As I understand it - it's the actual focal which matters - this is
>typically one fifth of the focal length of a DSLR (for the sane FOV), so
>DoF is proportially greater at the same f/stop. [I might be wrong here].
>
>David
>

DoF is predicated on two things; F-ratio and aperture. A smaller
diameter lens element with an f-4 focal ratio has a greater depth of
field than a larger lens with the same f-ratio. Similarly, a longer
f-ratio on any lens gives you a greater DoF. Those huge, fast
teles that go on DSLRs (400mm f2.8,for e.g.) have virtually no depth
of field when wide open. So, a little Olympus 5060 with it's 1.8 CCD
and it's lens that has a maximum aperture of only 1" will have a
greater DoF at the same f-ratio setting as a Canon DSLR with a 50mm
lens with a 1.5" diameter front lens.
-Rich
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 12:12:17 PM

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

James Of Tucson wrote:
[]
> Something I miss from the old days, is the way you could do crowd
> candids with a reflex camera. People don't expect you're actually
> taking pictures if you keep the camera at waist level and don't raise
> it to your eye -- not only that, but you're not actually looking in
> their direction, which also influences behavior, or can interfere with
> the situation you're trying to photograph.

Look for a swivel LCD to allow you to do this - one of the reasons want
image preview on a DSLR just like they have on point-and-shoots.

David
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 12:29:32 PM

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

RichA wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 08:10:47 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>
>>James Of Tucson wrote:
>>
>>>>the DoF is that much more.
>>>
>>>More than a good wide-angle prime on a DSLR, at corresponding stops?
>>>
>>>I've certainly been frustrated by the limitations of both DSLR and
>>>snapshot cameras, and I find that one complements the other nicely,
>>>but I also wonder how much of the DoF benefit is really an effect of a
>>>wider lens?
>>
>>As I understand it - it's the actual focal which matters - this is
>>typically one fifth of the focal length of a DSLR (for the sane FOV), so
>>DoF is proportially greater at the same f/stop. [I might be wrong here].
>
> DoF is predicated on two things; F-ratio and aperture. A smaller
> diameter lens element with an f-4 focal ratio has a greater depth of
> field than a larger lens with the same f-ratio. Similarly, a longer
> f-ratio on any lens gives you a greater DoF. Those huge, fast
> teles that go on DSLRs (400mm f2.8,for e.g.) have virtually no depth
> of field when wide open. So, a little Olympus 5060 with it's 1.8 CCD
> and it's lens that has a maximum aperture of only 1" will have a
> greater DoF at the same f-ratio setting as a Canon DSLR with a 50mm
> lens with a 1.5" diameter front lens.


What about at comparable field of view and distance though?

All I know is my Oly C3030 had f/2.8 & people actually complained that I
didn't have enough DOF in my pics, but that was mostly for shots in
macro mode.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 1:30:56 PM

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

Paul Furman wrote:
[]
> A P&S has 8MP on a sensor 8.8mm tall. Oly C8080 or Nikon 8700
> A DSLR has 8MP on a sensor 22.5 tall. Canon 20D
>
> Print results at 8" tall.
> How does the DOF compare for the same field of view?

Given everything else is equal - the DOF is approximately 22.5/8.8 times
greater on the P&S compared to the DSLR. Of course, the lens f/number
will be different, you may choose a different circle of confusion for each
camera etc. etc.

- to be more accurate, the reciprocal DOF (measured in 1/metres of 1/feet)
will be 8.8/22.5 times less on the P&S compared to the DSLR.

- your sensor sizes or orientation are wrong - the 8700 has a 2/3inch
sensor which is 8.8 mm wide by 6.6 mm high (11.0 mm diagonal), the Canon
is 22.5mm wide by 15.0mm high (27 mm diagonal).

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 1:30:57 PM

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

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 09:30:56 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
wrote:

>Paul Furman wrote:
>[]
>> A P&S has 8MP on a sensor 8.8mm tall. Oly C8080 or Nikon 8700
>> A DSLR has 8MP on a sensor 22.5 tall. Canon 20D
>>
>> Print results at 8" tall.
>> How does the DOF compare for the same field of view?
>
>Given everything else is equal - the DOF is approximately 22.5/8.8 times
>greater on the P&S compared to the DSLR. Of course, the lens f/number
>will be different, you may choose a different circle of confusion for each
>camera etc. etc.
>
>- to be more accurate, the reciprocal DOF (measured in 1/metres of 1/feet)
>will be 8.8/22.5 times less on the P&S compared to the DSLR.
>
>- your sensor sizes or orientation are wrong - the 8700 has a 2/3inch
>sensor which is 8.8 mm wide by 6.6 mm high (11.0 mm diagonal), the Canon
>is 22.5mm wide by 15.0mm high (27 mm diagonal).
>
>Cheers,
>David
>
Another thing; The acceptable "circle of confusion" is going to
be based on what size you view the image on a screen or print at,
how much post-image sharpening you do, etc.
-Rich
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 4:13:14 PM

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

RichA wrote:
[]
> Another thing; The acceptable "circle of confusion" is going to
> be based on what size you view the image on a screen or print at,
> how much post-image sharpening you do, etc.
> -Rich

Yes, you would need to use the CoC same value to produce a strict
comparison between any two cameras.

David
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 9:08:46 PM

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

RichA wrote:

>>Paul Furman wrote:
>>[]
>>
>>>A P&S has 8MP on a sensor 8.8mm tall [sic 6.6]. Oly C8080 or Nikon 8700
>>>A DSLR has 8MP on a sensor 22.5 tall. Canon 20D
>>>
>>>Print results at 8" tall.
>>>How does the DOF compare for the same field of view?
>>
>>Given everything else is equal - the DOF is approximately 22.5/8.8 times
>>greater on the P&S compared to the DSLR. Of course, the lens f/number
>>will be different, you may choose a different circle of confusion for each
>>camera etc. etc.
>>
>>- to be more accurate, the reciprocal DOF (measured in 1/metres of 1/feet)
>>will be 8.8/22.5 times less on the P&S compared to the DSLR.
>>
>>- your sensor sizes or orientation are wrong - the 8700 has a 2/3inch
>>sensor which is 8.8 mm wide by 6.6 mm high (11.0 mm diagonal),

Bah, sorry 6.6mm tall so 6.6/22.5 = 29% or 340% wow, that really is a
huge difference.


the Canon
>>is 22.5mm wide by 15.0mm high (27 mm diagonal).
>>
>>Cheers,
>>David
>>
>
> Another thing; The acceptable "circle of confusion" is going to
> be based on what size you view the image on a screen or print at,
> how much post-image sharpening you do, etc.


I'm assuming same print size, same number of pixels.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 1:58:18 AM

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

James Of Tucson wrote:
>
> When I bought my Canon 20D, I also bought a Powershot A85, thinking of
> it as more or less an accessory. But in some cases, that small camera
> has given me better results than the SLR. And there are definite
> advantages to its availability. I will carry the small camera places
> and into situations that the SLR would never go, for a long list of
> different reasons. And there is definitely a big difference in
> people's perception of different cameras. Sometimes this is beneficial
> either way. For instance, the professional-looking SLR on the carbon
> fiber tripod says "I mean business" and can be very helpful, but the
> same effect can also get in the way -- people react as if threatened,
> or else, stop being natural and pose. A point-and-shoot camera in the
> same situation can be much more subtle.

I agree with everything quoted above. A small, simple, unintimidating
point-and-shoot camera is much more than just a handy backup to a SLR,
or even to an advanced non-SLR. I discovered this back in the days
before digital, and it's just as true today.

I've owned and used a lot of different cameras over the years, but my
primary "companion camera" these days is a Canon Powershot A20 that just
keeps amazing me with its convenience and picture-taking prowess. I'm
looking at new cameras now, and the Digital Rebel XT is very attractive;
but so are the Powershot G6 and even the Powershot A95. (Plus several
other cameras from Nikon, Olympus and other makers.) I believe in
paying more for quality equipment, but these days even cameras in the
A-series class are pretty doggoned good ... and I'll have money left to
spend on my other gadget-oriented passions.<g> Perhaps more important,
another little P&S camera won't make me feel like I'm "carrying
equipment", so I'll be more likely to have it with me when interesting
photo opportunities present themselves.

--
Walter Luffman Medina, TN USA
Amateur curmudgeon, equal opportunity annoyer
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 4:19:54 AM

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

In article <NISdndmmXs4kxj_fRVn-sg@speakeasy.net>,
Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>Ack, I can't seem to concentrate enough to follow you (sorry). Lets
>forget about actual size in inches on the sensor and just talk about
>pixel pitch in other words P&S cams have smaller pixels (disregarding
>any variation in noise, etc).
>
>A P&S has 8MP on a sensor 8.8mm tall. Oly C8080 or Nikon 8700
>A DSLR has 8MP on a sensor 22.5 tall. Canon 20D
>
>Print results at 8" tall.
>How does the DOF compare for the same field of view?

Let's use for both cameras a lens that has the same focal length as the
height of the image (to avoid problems with different aspect ratios).

Assume 1000 pixels per picture height for CoC calculations.
That gives a CoC of 0.0088mm for the P&S and 0.0225 for the DSLR.

Assume an aperture of 2.8 of the P&S and the subject distance of 2 meters.
That gives a near depth of 1.222 meter and a far depth of 5.5 meter.

Plugging these numbers in the calculator with a CoC of 0.0225 and a focal
length of 22.5 gives an f/stop of f/7.16.

This is a factor 7.16/2.8 = 2.557 in f/stop or 6.539 in shutter speed or
sensitivity.

So, if you set the P&S to ISO 50 and f/2.8 then you can set the DSLR to
ISO 327 and f/7.16 to get the same depth of field and shutter speed.

(I used the DoF calculator at http://www.dudak.baka.com/dofcalc.html)


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 4:19:55 AM

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

Philip Homburg wrote:
>
<snip... more math than I can handle>
>
> So, if you set the P&S to ISO 50 and f/2.8 then you can set the DSLR to
> ISO 327 and f/7.16 to get the same depth of field and shutter speed.
>
> (I used the DoF calculator at http://www.dudak.baka.com/dofcalc.html)


Groovy. Thanks muchly. I think that is a fair handicap you applied with
the ISO and the DSLR would still be ahead in terms of noise after
boosting ISO to 327 (?).

PS I'm kind of surprised that f-stop doesn't mean the same thing on a
P&S and a larger DSLR. I thought it was a ratio so was scalable. Now we
need to talk about 35mm equivalent f-stop as well as focal length. Are
you certain this is true?

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 9:40:07 AM

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

Paul Furman wrote:
[]
> Bah, sorry 6.6mm tall so 6.6/22.5 = 29% or 340% wow, that really is a
> huge difference.

Yes, it really is a huge DoF difference - which may work for you in quick
shots not requiring as much (or any!) focus accuracy, or against you if
you are trying to isolate the subject from the background. A small DoF
(subject isolation) may be even more difficult because many P&S cameras
tend to have a smaller f/number at the longer end of their zoom range - so
choose carefully

(For example, IIRC, at maximum zoom the Nikon 8800 is f/5.2, but the
Panasonic FZ20 is f/2.8).

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 5:00:23 PM

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

In article <n-ednQk8Bo9PCD7fRVn-qg@speakeasy.net>,
Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>Philip Homburg wrote:
> >
><snip... more math than I can handle>
> >
>> So, if you set the P&S to ISO 50 and f/2.8 then you can set the DSLR to
>> ISO 327 and f/7.16 to get the same depth of field and shutter speed.
>>
>> (I used the DoF calculator at http://www.dudak.baka.com/dofcalc.html)
>
>Groovy. Thanks muchly. I think that is a fair handicap you applied with
>the ISO and the DSLR would still be ahead in terms of noise after
>boosting ISO to 327 (?).

From a physics point of view, the DLSR doesn't really have any advantage:
both configurations receive basically the same number of photons.
However, the DSLR is likely to have better components. This is certainly
the case when it comes to the sensor: sensors in DLSRs do just
still picture photography, sensors in P&S camera also have a video mode.

>PS I'm kind of surprised that f-stop doesn't mean the same thing on a
>P&S and a larger DSLR. I thought it was a ratio so was scalable. Now we
>need to talk about 35mm equivalent f-stop as well as focal length. Are
>you certain this is true?

F-stops are great for computing exposures: an f-stop number is independent
of both the format size and the focal length.

However, there is a simple rule of thumb:

An 8.8mm lens at f/2.8 has an aperture with diameter 8.8/2.8 = 3.14mm.
An 22.5mm lens at f/7.16 has an aperture with diameter 22.5/7.16 = 3.14mm.

The rule of thumb is that for constant field of view, subject distance and
CoC in the print, the depth of field is determined by the diameter of
the aperture.

So, if you look at those tiny lenses in P&S cameras, then you just have
stop down a DSLR lens to the same small aperture size as the aperture of
the P&S lens to get the same depth of field.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
!