Random Photos : Part 3
Discussion
I couldn't get the shot I wanted tonight, so I decided to create my own out of a few images...
IMG_0215_composite by Murray 1986, on Flickr
IMG_0215_composite by Murray 1986, on Flickr
Rob, would you mind sharing the settings you used for that photo?
I'm having real issues with getting shallow depth of field in camera - and think I might need a ned lens, as the maximum aperture of 3.5 at 15mm on my kit lens doesn't seem to want to isolate. At 42mm zoom, max aperture is 5.6, and similarly depth of field is quite high.
There are two lenses I'm considering to rectify this: a 1.7-20mm, and a 1.8-45mm. IO'd sort of like the latter, but have no idea what the minimum focus distance for the two lenses is (am busy finding out) so that I can attempt the sort of close-up work you managed with those ferns!
Any advice, from anyone posting on this thread, greedily assimilated and used, as always...!
I'm having real issues with getting shallow depth of field in camera - and think I might need a ned lens, as the maximum aperture of 3.5 at 15mm on my kit lens doesn't seem to want to isolate. At 42mm zoom, max aperture is 5.6, and similarly depth of field is quite high.
There are two lenses I'm considering to rectify this: a 1.7-20mm, and a 1.8-45mm. IO'd sort of like the latter, but have no idea what the minimum focus distance for the two lenses is (am busy finding out) so that I can attempt the sort of close-up work you managed with those ferns!
Any advice, from anyone posting on this thread, greedily assimilated and used, as always...!
Harry Flashman said:
Rob, would you mind sharing the settings you used for that photo?
I'm having real issues with getting shallow depth of field in camera - and think I might need a ned lens, as the maximum aperture of 3.5 at 15mm on my kit lens doesn't seem to want to isolate. At 42mm zoom, max aperture is 5.6, and similarly depth of field is quite high.
There are two lenses I'm considering to rectify this: a 1.7-20mm, and a 1.8-45mm. IO'd sort of like the latter, but have no idea what the minimum focus distance for the two lenses is (am busy finding out) so that I can attempt the sort of close-up work you managed with those ferns!
Any advice, from anyone posting on this thread, greedily assimilated and used, as always...!
A longer focal length will give you shallower depth of field, with everything else remaining the same, mess about with this online calculator to see how different paramters change the dof.I'm having real issues with getting shallow depth of field in camera - and think I might need a ned lens, as the maximum aperture of 3.5 at 15mm on my kit lens doesn't seem to want to isolate. At 42mm zoom, max aperture is 5.6, and similarly depth of field is quite high.
There are two lenses I'm considering to rectify this: a 1.7-20mm, and a 1.8-45mm. IO'd sort of like the latter, but have no idea what the minimum focus distance for the two lenses is (am busy finding out) so that I can attempt the sort of close-up work you managed with those ferns!
Any advice, from anyone posting on this thread, greedily assimilated and used, as always...!
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
the exif from Robs photo above shows he used a 400mm at f5.6
nre said:
Harry Flashman said:
Rob, would you mind sharing the settings you used for that photo?
I'm having real issues with getting shallow depth of field in camera - and think I might need a ned lens, as the maximum aperture of 3.5 at 15mm on my kit lens doesn't seem to want to isolate. At 42mm zoom, max aperture is 5.6, and similarly depth of field is quite high.
There are two lenses I'm considering to rectify this: a 1.7-20mm, and a 1.8-45mm. IO'd sort of like the latter, but have no idea what the minimum focus distance for the two lenses is (am busy finding out) so that I can attempt the sort of close-up work you managed with those ferns!
Any advice, from anyone posting on this thread, greedily assimilated and used, as always...!
A longer focal length will give you shallower depth of field, with everything else remaining the same, mess about with this online calculator to see how different paramters change the dof.I'm having real issues with getting shallow depth of field in camera - and think I might need a ned lens, as the maximum aperture of 3.5 at 15mm on my kit lens doesn't seem to want to isolate. At 42mm zoom, max aperture is 5.6, and similarly depth of field is quite high.
There are two lenses I'm considering to rectify this: a 1.7-20mm, and a 1.8-45mm. IO'd sort of like the latter, but have no idea what the minimum focus distance for the two lenses is (am busy finding out) so that I can attempt the sort of close-up work you managed with those ferns!
Any advice, from anyone posting on this thread, greedily assimilated and used, as always...!
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
the exif from Robs photo above shows he used a 400mm at f5.6
Looks like the 45mm lens will probably be good for portrait photography, as at 6 feet it gives a 0.28 ft DOF: the tel It will probably do better action shots at 45mm than the telephoto, due to the ability to get a faster shutter speed in. But I can get depth of field down to 0.08ft at 6 feet away at 150mm zoom on the telephoto, and I'm more interested in getting photos like Rob's fern one above than sport/action shots. I'm just guessing that light will be more of an issue with the telephoto lens.
In reality, I need to try them both before deciding, I guess...
Harry Flashman said:
That's great help: and it shows me that the PEN telephoto at 150mm/5.6 will give a shallower DOF than the 45mm/1.8. Very useful, and makes the 40-150mm 4.0-5.6 more what I seem to be after than the 45 1.8.
Looks like the 45mm lens will probably be good for portrait photography, as at 6 feet it gives a 0.28 ft DOF: the tel It will probably do better action shots at 45mm than the telephoto, due to the ability to get a faster shutter speed in. But I can get depth of field down to 0.08ft at 6 feet away at 150mm zoom on the telephoto, and I'm more interested in getting photos like Rob's fern one above than sport/action shots. I'm just guessing that light will be more of an issue with the telephoto lens.
In reality, I need to try them both before deciding, I guess...
Are you using a micro 4/3rds camera? I used to have the 20mm f/1.7 and it takes really nice pictures. I can pop up a few examples if you're interested. Looks like the 45mm lens will probably be good for portrait photography, as at 6 feet it gives a 0.28 ft DOF: the tel It will probably do better action shots at 45mm than the telephoto, due to the ability to get a faster shutter speed in. But I can get depth of field down to 0.08ft at 6 feet away at 150mm zoom on the telephoto, and I'm more interested in getting photos like Rob's fern one above than sport/action shots. I'm just guessing that light will be more of an issue with the telephoto lens.
In reality, I need to try them both before deciding, I guess...
That DOF calculator is very interesting, thanks for the link
Here's the first shot of my new motor, now I'm pretty much done with the styling mods
My Black NC MX5 by PGDesigns.co.uk, on Flickr
Here's the first shot of my new motor, now I'm pretty much done with the styling mods
My Black NC MX5 by PGDesigns.co.uk, on Flickr
PGD5 said:
That DOF calculator is very interesting, thanks for the link
Here's the first shot of my new motor, now I'm pretty much done with the styling mods
My Black NC MX5 by PGDesigns.co.uk, on Flickr
Missing the Mk1 yet? Here's the first shot of my new motor, now I'm pretty much done with the styling mods
My Black NC MX5 by PGDesigns.co.uk, on Flickr
Harry Flashman said:
That's great help: and it shows me that the PEN telephoto at 150mm/5.6 will give a shallower DOF than the 45mm/1.8. Very useful, and makes the 40-150mm 4.0-5.6 more what I seem to be after than the 45 1.8.
Looks like the 45mm lens will probably be good for portrait photography, as at 6 feet it gives a 0.28 ft DOF: the tel It will probably do better action shots at 45mm than the telephoto, due to the ability to get a faster shutter speed in. But I can get depth of field down to 0.08ft at 6 feet away at 150mm zoom on the telephoto, and I'm more interested in getting photos like Rob's fern one above than sport/action shots. I'm just guessing that light will be more of an issue with the telephoto lens.
In reality, I need to try them both before deciding, I guess...
I seem to remember that (with 35mm film) a 125mm lens was normally recommended for portraits. The logic was that 125mm is a reasonable approximation to the perceived focal length of the human eye and so features were rendered in the most natural way.Looks like the 45mm lens will probably be good for portrait photography, as at 6 feet it gives a 0.28 ft DOF: the tel It will probably do better action shots at 45mm than the telephoto, due to the ability to get a faster shutter speed in. But I can get depth of field down to 0.08ft at 6 feet away at 150mm zoom on the telephoto, and I'm more interested in getting photos like Rob's fern one above than sport/action shots. I'm just guessing that light will be more of an issue with the telephoto lens.
In reality, I need to try them both before deciding, I guess...
Is my recollection wrong?
gingerpaul said:
Harry Flashman said:
That's great help: and it shows me that the PEN telephoto at 150mm/5.6 will give a shallower DOF than the 45mm/1.8. Very useful, and makes the 40-150mm 4.0-5.6 more what I seem to be after than the 45 1.8.
Looks like the 45mm lens will probably be good for portrait photography, as at 6 feet it gives a 0.28 ft DOF: the tel It will probably do better action shots at 45mm than the telephoto, due to the ability to get a faster shutter speed in. But I can get depth of field down to 0.08ft at 6 feet away at 150mm zoom on the telephoto, and I'm more interested in getting photos like Rob's fern one above than sport/action shots. I'm just guessing that light will be more of an issue with the telephoto lens.
In reality, I need to try them both before deciding, I guess...
Are you using a micro 4/3rds camera? I used to have the 20mm f/1.7 and it takes really nice pictures. I can pop up a few examples if you're interested. Looks like the 45mm lens will probably be good for portrait photography, as at 6 feet it gives a 0.28 ft DOF: the tel It will probably do better action shots at 45mm than the telephoto, due to the ability to get a faster shutter speed in. But I can get depth of field down to 0.08ft at 6 feet away at 150mm zoom on the telephoto, and I'm more interested in getting photos like Rob's fern one above than sport/action shots. I'm just guessing that light will be more of an issue with the telephoto lens.
In reality, I need to try them both before deciding, I guess...
AstonZagato said:
I seem to remember that (with 35mm film) a 125mm lens was normally recommended for portraits. The logic was that 125mm is a reasonable approximation to the perceived focal length of the human eye and so features were rendered in the most natural way.
Is my recollection wrong?
Generally on 35mm (and hence full frame digital) it is given as 50mm being equivalent to the human eye, hence about 35mm on a crop sensor.Is my recollection wrong?
My dad was a professional photographer in the 60s and 70s and says most of them considered either 85mm or 135mm ideal focal lengths for portraits.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff