Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
I feel cheated!
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
Dec 6, 2012 09:10:33   #
Beagleman Loc: Indiana
 
A few months ago I bought a Canon S100 P & S camera because it was listed at f/2 at the widest aperture among other attractive features. I couldn't afford a DSLR and I was determined to get a high quality small camera with large aperture so I could take some portraits of my grandchildren. I thought that the f/2 would produce shallow depth of field and thus blurred backgrounds. This proved to be WRONG!

After puzzling over it for some time and reading to find the answer, I located this statement in Bryan Peterson's book "Understanding Exposure":
"Your fixed-lens camera is hopelessly plagued with an uncanny ability to render a tremendous amount of depth of field, even when you set your lens to f/2.8---an aperture of f/2.8 is equivalent to an aperture opening of f/11 on an SLR camera! And when you're at f/4, you're able to record a depth of field equivalent to f/16. At f/5.6, you're equivalent to f/22. At f/8 , you're equivalent to f/32, and if your lens goes to f/11, you're equivalent to a whopping f/64! Those of us who use SLRs can only dream of the vast depth of field that would result from apertures like f/64." Then later on he says: "So, is there a downside to these fixed-zoom-lens digital cameras? Yes, there is: you can't be nearly as succesful when shooting 'singular-theme/isolation' compositions. Even with your lens set to telephoto length and your aperture wide open, you'll struggle with most attempts to render a background that remains muted and out of focus. Remember, even wide open---at f/2.8 for example--- you still have a depth of field equivalent to f/11 on an SLR."

Wow! I didn't know that. Now, although I have a fine small camera for many things, I can't do what I wanted to do. Arrgggh!!

---Beagleman

Reply
Dec 6, 2012 09:26:48   #
Malcolm B Loc: Leicester (UK)
 
Thanks for the information Beagleman. That explains why I have never been able to get blurred backgrounds with my Canon A640.

Hopefully this will help others make the decision between P&S or DSLR, if like you they want to to get blurred backgrounds. I needed mine originally purely for record purposes on a course I was doing so was not bothered about background blur. Since then it has been a different matter. However, I also have DSLRs so can get blur when needed.

Reply
Dec 6, 2012 10:19:31   #
haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska
 
It looks like you could be a candidate for a 'bridge camera'. On my Canon SX40, I am able to do photographs that blur the background- although not as we'll as my DSLR. There are other P & S and 'bridge cameras' that can also do this.

Reply
 
 
Dec 7, 2012 05:33:13   #
Solomon Loc: Australia
 
as far as I know the reason for this problem is cos the nodel point on the lens is so closeto the sensor.. for point and shoot people on a holiday its a ideal camera nearly anything you point it at will be in focus.

Reply
Dec 7, 2012 05:42:30   #
dlwhawaii Loc: Sunny Wailuku, Hawaii
 
You may be able to solve your problem using post processing. There are programs, old age kicks in, which I can't remember that can selectively defocus areas of your picture. It's too early for my mind to be working, but I know it can be done PP.

Found the program - Focal Point 2 by OnOne Software :thumbup:

Reply
Dec 7, 2012 07:13:22   #
marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL
 
Beagleman wrote:
A few months ago I bought a Canon S100 P & S camera because it was listed at f/2 at the widest aperture among other attractive features. I couldn't afford a DSLR and I was determined to get a high quality small camera with large aperture so I could take some portraits of my grandchildren. I thought that the f/2 would produce shallow depth of field and thus blurred backgrounds. This proved to be WRONG!

After puzzling over it for some time and reading to find the answer, I located this statement in Bryan Peterson's book "Understanding Exposure":
"Your fixed-lens camera is hopelessly plagued with an uncanny ability to render a tremendous amount of depth of field, even when you set your lens to f/2.8---an aperture of f/2.8 is equivalent to an aperture opening of f/11 on an SLR camera! And when you're at f/4, you're able to record a depth of field equivalent to f/16. At f/5.6, you're equivalent to f/22. At f/8 , you're equivalent to f/32, and if your lens goes to f/11, you're equivalent to a whopping f/64! Those of us who use SLRs can only dream of the vast depth of field that would result from apertures like f/64." Then later on he says: "So, is there a downside to these fixed-zoom-lens digital cameras? Yes, there is: you can't be nearly as succesful when shooting 'singular-theme/isolation' compositions. Even with your lens set to telephoto length and your aperture wide open, you'll struggle with most attempts to render a background that remains muted and out of focus. Remember, even wide open---at f/2.8 for example--- you still have a depth of field equivalent to f/11 on an SLR."

Wow! I didn't know that. Now, although I have a fine small camera for many things, I can't do what I wanted to do. Arrgggh!!

---Beagleman
A few months ago I bought a Canon S100 P & S c... (show quote)


P&S cameras are meant for users who don't even know what depth of field means and never heard the phrase. If you want all the abilities of a Bridge or dSLR - you have to buy a Bridge or dSLR. You haven't been cheated by anyone but yourself! :?

Reply
Dec 7, 2012 07:48:46   #
Beagleman Loc: Indiana
 
Thanks everyone for your responses. I guess I just needed to share my frustration (as marco marks put it) with myself.

---Beagleman

Reply
 
 
Dec 7, 2012 10:23:59   #
KERO Loc: Richmond, Va.
 
You have got to be kidding me. I just order the Canon S110 on Wednesday to get control of the DOF that my little Nikon cool pix won't give me. Tell me I didn't just waste $400.00.

Reply
Dec 7, 2012 10:39:38   #
-lois- Loc: Oregon
 
Beagleman wrote:
Thanks everyone for your responses. I guess I just needed to share my frustration (as marco marks put it) with myself.

---Beagleman

Actually, I think you informed a couple of people of something they didn't know. Ignore the snarky responses..almost every post gets a least one for some reason.

Reply
Dec 7, 2012 10:40:48   #
MtnMan Loc: ID
 
Beagleman wrote:
A few months ago I bought a Canon S100 P & S camera because it was listed at f/2 at the widest aperture among other attractive features. I couldn't afford a DSLR and I was determined to get a high quality small camera with large aperture so I could take some portraits of my grandchildren. I thought that the f/2 would produce shallow depth of field and thus blurred backgrounds. This proved to be WRONG!

After puzzling over it for some time and reading to find the answer, I located this statement in Bryan Peterson's book "Understanding Exposure":
"Your fixed-lens camera is hopelessly plagued with an uncanny ability to render a tremendous amount of depth of field, even when you set your lens to f/2.8---an aperture of f/2.8 is equivalent to an aperture opening of f/11 on an SLR camera! And when you're at f/4, you're able to record a depth of field equivalent to f/16. At f/5.6, you're equivalent to f/22. At f/8 , you're equivalent to f/32, and if your lens goes to f/11, you're equivalent to a whopping f/64! Those of us who use SLRs can only dream of the vast depth of field that would result from apertures like f/64." Then later on he says: "So, is there a downside to these fixed-zoom-lens digital cameras? Yes, there is: you can't be nearly as succesful when shooting 'singular-theme/isolation' compositions. Even with your lens set to telephoto length and your aperture wide open, you'll struggle with most attempts to render a background that remains muted and out of focus. Remember, even wide open---at f/2.8 for example--- you still have a depth of field equivalent to f/11 on an SLR."

Wow! I didn't know that. Now, although I have a fine small camera for many things, I can't do what I wanted to do. Arrgggh!!

---Beagleman
A few months ago I bought a Canon S100 P & S c... (show quote)


The good news is that most people don't complain about blurred images from such cameras.

Reply
Dec 7, 2012 10:47:24   #
Coops Place Loc: Chicago Area
 
Wow, I learned something today. I didn't know this about point and shoot cameras. Thanks for the info.

Reply
 
 
Dec 7, 2012 10:56:43   #
KERO Loc: Richmond, Va.
 
D & H says:
With its 5x Optical Zoom, the S110's 24-120mm equivalent lens has a bright f/2.0 aperture, which is ideal for low-light conditions or using a shallow depth-of-field for pleasing, defocused background effects. These benefits also translate into the Full HD video captured by the camera, providing the same desirable background effects, and excellent zoom for close-ups of your subject.

Reply
Dec 7, 2012 10:57:26   #
KERO Loc: Richmond, Va.
 
Sorry B&H.

Reply
Dec 7, 2012 11:34:03   #
raynardo Loc: Oceanside, CA
 
My little Sony DSC-WX50 has a portrait mode that does blur the background.

Sweet!

Reply
Dec 7, 2012 12:14:13   #
MtnMan Loc: ID
 
raynardo wrote:
My little Sony DSC-WX50 has a portrait mode that does blur the background.

Sweet!


It probably has a larger sensor and/or maximum aperture.

Reply
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.