Bridge camera depth of field - or why I stopped using aperture priority with my SX50 :)
Oct 10, 2014 12:30:48 #
A question came up from a new photographer, with an SX50, about how to make backgrounds blurry. Since the bridge cameras are so different from SLR's with regards to depth of field, I'm offering these examples.
Note that there is virtually no difference in depth of field from lowest f/stop number available for the focal length to the max.
The best way I've found to blur the background is to stand back and zoom in close. If anyone else has stories or photo examples of a different way, please provide here.
Note that there is virtually no difference in depth of field from lowest f/stop number available for the focal length to the max.
The best way I've found to blur the background is to stand back and zoom in close. If anyone else has stories or photo examples of a different way, please provide here.
Oct 10, 2014 12:41:42 #
Linda you are absolutely correct. My Fuji bridge camera is not a lot different, small sensor, small (largest) aperture and f/8 for the smallest aperture. Huge depth of field at normal shooting distances. The smaller the sensor, the greater the DoF.
Even better example is the older mobile phone cameras. Tiny sensor, no need to focus at all.
Even better example is the older mobile phone cameras. Tiny sensor, no need to focus at all.
Oct 10, 2014 12:42:24 #
Searcher wrote:
....
Even better example is the older mobile phone cameras. Tiny sensor, no need to focus at all.
Even better example is the older mobile phone cameras. Tiny sensor, no need to focus at all.
:thumbup:
Oct 10, 2014 12:53:34 #
Generally speaking:
1. The smaller the sensor the less DOF you will have.
2. Much of the general public doesn't understand DOF. They think of it as a problem with the camera.
*Go to a fine art show photo booth and listen to some of the comments from people. "Why is the background so out of focus")
1. The smaller the sensor the less DOF you will have.
2. Much of the general public doesn't understand DOF. They think of it as a problem with the camera.
*Go to a fine art show photo booth and listen to some of the comments from people. "Why is the background so out of focus")
Oct 10, 2014 12:54:43 #
GENorkus wrote:
Generally speaking:
1. The smaller the sensor the less DOF you will have.
2. Much of the general public doesn't understand DOF. They think of it as a problem with the camera.
*Go to a fine art show photo booth and listen to some of the comments from people. "Why is the background so out of focus")
1. The smaller the sensor the less DOF you will have.
2. Much of the general public doesn't understand DOF. They think of it as a problem with the camera.
*Go to a fine art show photo booth and listen to some of the comments from people. "Why is the background so out of focus")
Statement #1 maybe re-word? Not "less" as in shallow dof (the opposite is true), but less as in fewer choices, no real way to control except with focal length.
Oct 10, 2014 13:19:53 #
I did the same thing with my Fuji X-S1 and continue with my Sony. Stand back and use as much zoom as possible.
Nice examples by the way, Linda.
Nice examples by the way, Linda.
Oct 10, 2014 13:23:22 #
I'm seeing the wide open shots sharper overall due to the diffraction when stopped down. DOF almost seems nonexistent. Not debating the point though - DOF is hard to achieve with a bridge but not impossible. I've done it too.
Oct 10, 2014 13:35:17 #
rp2s wrote:
I did the same thing with my Fuji X-S1 and continue with my Sony. Stand back and use as much zoom as possible.
Nice examples, by the way, Linda.
Nice examples, by the way, Linda.
Thanks rp.
Oct 10, 2014 13:36:19 #
n3eg wrote:
I'm seeing the wide open shots sharper overall due to the diffraction when stopped down. DOF almost seems nonexistent. Not debating the point though - DOF is hard to achieve with a bridge but not impossible. I've done it too.
Were you able to achieve a shallow depth of field with the wider angle? Or telephoto only? As shown by my 106 mm equiv, still can't get background blurred.
Oct 10, 2014 17:32:57 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
Statement #1 maybe re-word? Not "less" as in shallow dof (the opposite is true), but less as in fewer choices, no real way to control except with focal length.
Thanks for clearing up the confusion Linda!
Oct 10, 2014 17:35:11 #
GENorkus wrote:
Thanks for clearing up the confusion Linda!
I'm easily confused :)
Oct 10, 2014 22:05:19 #
If I may chime in, some of it may depend on back ground. I did some shots for my nephews senior pics with a tree filled hill side as a back drop. I focused on him with my max app of 8? And the hill side was blurred making him really pop. First thing my mom said was, he can fix the blurry hillside. I said no I wanted it like that and explained the best I could.
Oct 10, 2014 22:53:50 #
Racin17 wrote:
If I may chime in, some of it may depend on back ground. I did some shots for my nephews senior pics with a tree filled hill side as a back drop. I focused on him with my max app of 8? And the hill side was blurred making him really pop. First thing my mom said was, he can fix the blurry hillside. I said no I wanted it like that and explained the best I could.
Do you have info on the focal length you used?
Oct 10, 2014 23:03:00 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
A question came up from a new photographer, with a... (show quote)
Thanks for this interesting info. Linda, I just recently added a full frame to my bag and have noticed how much easier it is to achieve bokeh over the cropped frame. I think I have just been enlightened a little.
Phil
Oct 11, 2014 07:02:44 #
I have no personal opinion, as Jack Webb (Dragnet LAPD) would say "Just the fax mam." ... "No mam, I realize you don't have a fax machine... facts....facts... you ol hag..."
"As sensor size increases, the depth of field will decrease for a given aperture (when filling the frame with a subject of the same size and distance). This is because larger sensors require one to get closer to their subject, or to use a longer focal length in order to fill the frame with that subject. This means that one has to use progressively smaller aperture sizes in order to maintain the same depth of field on larger sensors. The following calculator predicts the required aperture and focal length in order to achieve the same depth of field (while maintaining perspective)."
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm
Of course this is one of the many reasons why my Compact SuperZoom Pocket Camera is vastly superior to the full sensor bulky DSLRs in the world.... (dream on huh!)
Searcher is on the money as usual.. That man knows sum stuff.
"As sensor size increases, the depth of field will decrease for a given aperture (when filling the frame with a subject of the same size and distance). This is because larger sensors require one to get closer to their subject, or to use a longer focal length in order to fill the frame with that subject. This means that one has to use progressively smaller aperture sizes in order to maintain the same depth of field on larger sensors. The following calculator predicts the required aperture and focal length in order to achieve the same depth of field (while maintaining perspective)."
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm
Of course this is one of the many reasons why my Compact SuperZoom Pocket Camera is vastly superior to the full sensor bulky DSLRs in the world.... (dream on huh!)
Searcher is on the money as usual.. That man knows sum stuff.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.