DOF (depth of field) and focus questions
Discussion
Hi guys, quick few questions regarding DOF and focus tips.
I've been reviewing photographs I've taken over the past year or so and compared the pics taken with the RX100 at f1.8 to those taken using my new 700D at f1.8 with the 50mm lens fitted, and note quite a startling difference in the bokeh effect between them. Many of the Sony RX100 pics don't seem to have the blurred out background that is so easy to achieve with the new 50mm lens on the Canon 700D. Is there any particular reason for this?
Also, bearing in mind the very narrow focus range at f1.8, is it not better to use f2.8 for portraits or is there some formula to work with to ensure that not just that one eye is in focus whilst the rest of the far is slightly out-of-focus. I gather that it is best to focus on one of the eyes then recompose for best effect rather than focusing on the nose.
Also, I seem to recollect reading on a previous post now lost in the ether on PH that f1.8 was far too narrow for car photography.
With the 700D and 50mm lens is it best to focus on the headlights or windscreen of a car using a single crosshair, then recomposing? Am guessing that f1.8 will have far too shallow a depth of field unless photographing side on. I also have a couple of zoom lenses but seem to recollect that the 50mm prime may provide sharper optics - always providing that there is sufficient space to take the photograph.
The RX100 also offers the option to spot focus (I think), apologies but I don't have it to hand so can't quite remember what focus options are available!
I would like to experiment with various apertures at a few classic car shows next year, so in the meantime intend to take a few pics in various car parks to see just what does get blurred out.
Any tips and tricks on photographing the above would be much appreciated.
Cheers in advance
I've been reviewing photographs I've taken over the past year or so and compared the pics taken with the RX100 at f1.8 to those taken using my new 700D at f1.8 with the 50mm lens fitted, and note quite a startling difference in the bokeh effect between them. Many of the Sony RX100 pics don't seem to have the blurred out background that is so easy to achieve with the new 50mm lens on the Canon 700D. Is there any particular reason for this?
Also, bearing in mind the very narrow focus range at f1.8, is it not better to use f2.8 for portraits or is there some formula to work with to ensure that not just that one eye is in focus whilst the rest of the far is slightly out-of-focus. I gather that it is best to focus on one of the eyes then recompose for best effect rather than focusing on the nose.
Also, I seem to recollect reading on a previous post now lost in the ether on PH that f1.8 was far too narrow for car photography.
With the 700D and 50mm lens is it best to focus on the headlights or windscreen of a car using a single crosshair, then recomposing? Am guessing that f1.8 will have far too shallow a depth of field unless photographing side on. I also have a couple of zoom lenses but seem to recollect that the 50mm prime may provide sharper optics - always providing that there is sufficient space to take the photograph.
The RX100 also offers the option to spot focus (I think), apologies but I don't have it to hand so can't quite remember what focus options are available!
I would like to experiment with various apertures at a few classic car shows next year, so in the meantime intend to take a few pics in various car parks to see just what does get blurred out.
Any tips and tricks on photographing the above would be much appreciated.
Cheers in advance
This might help a bit.
Posted on an earlier thread:
Posted on an earlier thread:
Otispunkmeyer said:
http://dofsimulator.net/en/
found this useful for trying to gauge just what the aperture means for pictures when comparing 1 inch, APSC, FF etc.
found this useful for trying to gauge just what the aperture means for pictures when comparing 1 inch, APSC, FF etc.
sgrimshaw said:
This might help a bit.
Posted on an earlier thread:
Handy tool as it does have presets in for specific cameras and lens combosPosted on an earlier thread:
Otispunkmeyer said:
http://dofsimulator.net/en/
found this useful for trying to gauge just what the aperture means for pictures when comparing 1 inch, APSC, FF etc.
found this useful for trying to gauge just what the aperture means for pictures when comparing 1 inch, APSC, FF etc.
The RX100 has a 2.7 crop so I would have said like for like at FF the 1.8 at 24 mm would be the same as nearly F5 on FF? is that right? in terms of DoF?
EDIT: Just tried it on the simulator. Seems right. 50 mm equivalent focal length, subject at 1 m, background at infinity, frame locked and I have to push a FF camera to F8 before the DoF/Bokeh matches the RX100 at 50mm equivalent focal length and its F2.8 setting. 2.8x2.71 = 7.58.
Basically to get some nice bokeh/shallow DoF shots you'll need to work at the longest end of the RX100 zoom and have the subject close. Then it should be reasonable. Depending on the shot no doubt DoF/Bokeh can be enhanced in post if necessary.
Its all to do with field of view I gather.
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Tuesday 5th January 17:36
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Tuesday 5th January 17:43
Only two things affect depth of field - the aperture and the subject magnification. The first of those is (hopefully) obvious. It's the second that causes confusion.
Put simply; the subject magnification is the difference in size between the actual, physical subject and the image of the subject projected inside the camera by the lens. If you zoom in then this image gets larger and the DoF decreases. Same if you move closer, the image gets larger and the DoF decreases. If you move back then zoom in to keep the framing the same, the two cancel each other out and the DoF remains the same. A headshot taken at 24mm f2.8 will have the same DoF as a headshot taken at 200mm f2.8 (or indeed any other focal length*.
There is one more variable with this - sensor size. A larger sensor requires a larger image to cover it, so naturally leads to a higher magnification (and therefore shallower DoF) for a given composition. An extreme example would be a portrait taken on a 10x8 film camera, which would be very close to 1x magnification (i.e. life-sized!). That's something that's normally only seen in Macro photography!
Going back to your example, the difference in your case is the sensor size. The RX100 has a much smaller sensor than your 70D so you will take your shots with a much lower magnification. There isn't really much you can do about this!
* One final note. "Amount of background blur" is a separate thing from DoF. DoF only ever tells you how much is *in focus*, it tells you nothing about the areas *out of focus*. A longer effective focal length will make the background appear more blurred, but the amount in focus will remain constant.
Put simply; the subject magnification is the difference in size between the actual, physical subject and the image of the subject projected inside the camera by the lens. If you zoom in then this image gets larger and the DoF decreases. Same if you move closer, the image gets larger and the DoF decreases. If you move back then zoom in to keep the framing the same, the two cancel each other out and the DoF remains the same. A headshot taken at 24mm f2.8 will have the same DoF as a headshot taken at 200mm f2.8 (or indeed any other focal length*.
There is one more variable with this - sensor size. A larger sensor requires a larger image to cover it, so naturally leads to a higher magnification (and therefore shallower DoF) for a given composition. An extreme example would be a portrait taken on a 10x8 film camera, which would be very close to 1x magnification (i.e. life-sized!). That's something that's normally only seen in Macro photography!
Going back to your example, the difference in your case is the sensor size. The RX100 has a much smaller sensor than your 70D so you will take your shots with a much lower magnification. There isn't really much you can do about this!
* One final note. "Amount of background blur" is a separate thing from DoF. DoF only ever tells you how much is *in focus*, it tells you nothing about the areas *out of focus*. A longer effective focal length will make the background appear more blurred, but the amount in focus will remain constant.
It's worth having a play with this: http://howmuchblur.com/#compare-2.7x-10mm-f1.8-and...
It's like a DoF calculator but for the amount of blur rather than the amount of sharpness.
It's like a DoF calculator but for the amount of blur rather than the amount of sharpness.
First off, thank you to everyone that has replied and all the answers received so far, things are slowly coming into focus or not as the case may be - I have a great deal to learn!!!
ExPat2B thanks for your suggestion and having checked the specs of the RX100 and the 700D it would seem that the answer appears to be no the zoom length isn't the same, so it's not on a level playing field to start with!
RX100 MK1:
Resolution 20.2 megapixels
Type CMOS
Size 1″ / 13.2 x 8.8 mm
ISO sensitivity AUTO, 125 - 6400
Image stabiliser Optical
LENS
Focal length 10.4 - 37.1 mm
35 mm equivalent 28 - 100 mm
Maximum aperture f/1.8
Minimum aperture f/11
700D
Resolution 18 megapixels
Type CMOS
Size 22.3 x 14.9 mm
Format 3:2
Crop factor 1.6 x
Cleaning EOS integrated cleaning system
ISO sensitivity - AUTO, 100-12800
- Expandable to 25600
Fitted with Canon 50mm f1.8 STM lens
brman I must admit that I hadn't considered that the size of sensor would affect the DoF but if it's forcing the RX100 to an equivalent aperture of f8 it's no wonder it can't match the background blurring effect easily achieved with the 50mm lens on the 700D.
I can see why zooming in on the object might improve the Bokeh effect always assuming it is far enough away from objects behind it.
Mr Will, thank you for your very informative comments and guidance ref the DoF and background blur being separate items to consider.
sgrimshaw thank you for posting the link to that provided in another post by Otispunkmeyer who provided the link to the DoF simulator and your recommendations ,and this may be something easily achievable when taking portrait photographs where the subject can be moved to a more appropriate spot, whilst is something that might not be able to control if taking photos at a classic car show when possibly f1.8 would be too shallow to keep the whole car in focus from front to back, whilst selecting f2.8 might result in insufficient blurring out of the background. I guess this is where the likes of Photoshop and layers comes in handy!
RobDickinson good point about the focus distance, I had accidentally come across this when photographing the keyboard on my MacBook and was quite astonished when I viewed the photos to see the blurring of the keyboard keys which I noticed was affected by the aperture settings, namely when set to f1.8 it had a very shallow depth of field whereby everything apart from the key it was focused on were blurry, yet when I adjusted the f stop to a higher number such as f2.8 or f4+ more items remained in focus. This must lend itself very nicely to artistic photographs once this process is fully understood.
My understanding up to this point had been that the lower the achievable f number the better the low light capabilities of the lens due to more light being let in at any given point, this ignoring the sensor size and ISO capabilities of the camera. I hadn't appreciated the DoF ramifications because up till now had only been concentrating on shutter speed to minimise blur of the objects or people being photographed.
What I hadn't realised is the fact that when set to f1.8 the DoF is extremely shallow to the extent that photographing a face at f1.8 may result in soft focus on all points apart from what the crosshair was focused on - I twigged onto this point over Christmas when attempting to photograph the baubles on the Christmas tree using one crosshair for focusing, and noticed that when set at f1.8 they tended to be a little bit soft/out-of-focus on the edges compared to the front, yet when I adjusted the aperture to f2.8 everything remained sharp, except I lost a small amount of background blur!
Thanks once again for all the suggestions made
ExPat2B thanks for your suggestion and having checked the specs of the RX100 and the 700D it would seem that the answer appears to be no the zoom length isn't the same, so it's not on a level playing field to start with!
RX100 MK1:
Resolution 20.2 megapixels
Type CMOS
Size 1″ / 13.2 x 8.8 mm
ISO sensitivity AUTO, 125 - 6400
Image stabiliser Optical
LENS
Focal length 10.4 - 37.1 mm
35 mm equivalent 28 - 100 mm
Maximum aperture f/1.8
Minimum aperture f/11
700D
Resolution 18 megapixels
Type CMOS
Size 22.3 x 14.9 mm
Format 3:2
Crop factor 1.6 x
Cleaning EOS integrated cleaning system
ISO sensitivity - AUTO, 100-12800
- Expandable to 25600
Fitted with Canon 50mm f1.8 STM lens
brman I must admit that I hadn't considered that the size of sensor would affect the DoF but if it's forcing the RX100 to an equivalent aperture of f8 it's no wonder it can't match the background blurring effect easily achieved with the 50mm lens on the 700D.
I can see why zooming in on the object might improve the Bokeh effect always assuming it is far enough away from objects behind it.
Mr Will, thank you for your very informative comments and guidance ref the DoF and background blur being separate items to consider.
sgrimshaw thank you for posting the link to that provided in another post by Otispunkmeyer who provided the link to the DoF simulator and your recommendations ,and this may be something easily achievable when taking portrait photographs where the subject can be moved to a more appropriate spot, whilst is something that might not be able to control if taking photos at a classic car show when possibly f1.8 would be too shallow to keep the whole car in focus from front to back, whilst selecting f2.8 might result in insufficient blurring out of the background. I guess this is where the likes of Photoshop and layers comes in handy!
RobDickinson good point about the focus distance, I had accidentally come across this when photographing the keyboard on my MacBook and was quite astonished when I viewed the photos to see the blurring of the keyboard keys which I noticed was affected by the aperture settings, namely when set to f1.8 it had a very shallow depth of field whereby everything apart from the key it was focused on were blurry, yet when I adjusted the f stop to a higher number such as f2.8 or f4+ more items remained in focus. This must lend itself very nicely to artistic photographs once this process is fully understood.
My understanding up to this point had been that the lower the achievable f number the better the low light capabilities of the lens due to more light being let in at any given point, this ignoring the sensor size and ISO capabilities of the camera. I hadn't appreciated the DoF ramifications because up till now had only been concentrating on shutter speed to minimise blur of the objects or people being photographed.
What I hadn't realised is the fact that when set to f1.8 the DoF is extremely shallow to the extent that photographing a face at f1.8 may result in soft focus on all points apart from what the crosshair was focused on - I twigged onto this point over Christmas when attempting to photograph the baubles on the Christmas tree using one crosshair for focusing, and noticed that when set at f1.8 they tended to be a little bit soft/out-of-focus on the edges compared to the front, yet when I adjusted the aperture to f2.8 everything remained sharp, except I lost a small amount of background blur!
Thanks once again for all the suggestions made
Aye the RX100 is only 37mm at its longest, and the sensor size is small so needs a very fast aperture to get a good dof/bokeh, all this is built around the 'circle of confusion'.
But basically sensor size wins, bigger is better.
Your 70d and 50/1.8 acts like a 6d/5d3 with an 85mm f2.8 or so on, so the FF cameras always 'beat' the crops and those beat the P&S crowd etc
As for portraits, you can always stop down for more dof! Just bump ISO to compensate for shutter speed.
Also think about your compositions, if the face is flat on then you can shoot with a bigger aperture.
Side on and if you want both eyes in focus you will need to stop down or move back.
The further away the focus point is the more DOF you have. So you can use f1.8 just not for a straight side on headshot that fills the frame.
But basically sensor size wins, bigger is better.
Your 70d and 50/1.8 acts like a 6d/5d3 with an 85mm f2.8 or so on, so the FF cameras always 'beat' the crops and those beat the P&S crowd etc
As for portraits, you can always stop down for more dof! Just bump ISO to compensate for shutter speed.
Also think about your compositions, if the face is flat on then you can shoot with a bigger aperture.
Side on and if you want both eyes in focus you will need to stop down or move back.
The further away the focus point is the more DOF you have. So you can use f1.8 just not for a straight side on headshot that fills the frame.
RobDickinson said:
Aye the RX100 is only 37mm at its longest, and the sensor size is small so needs a very fast aperture to get a good dof/bokeh, all this is built around the 'circle of confusion'.
But basically sensor size wins, bigger is better.
Your 70d and 50/1.8 acts like a 6d/5d3 with an 85mm f2.8 or so on, so the FF cameras always 'beat' the crops and those beat the P&S crowd etc
As for portraits, you can always stop down for more dof! Just bump ISO to compensate for shutter speed.
Also think about your compositions, if the face is flat on then you can shoot with a bigger aperture.
Side on and if you want both eyes in focus you will need to stop down or move back.
The further away the focus point is the more DOF you have. So you can use f1.8 just not for a straight side on headshot that fills the frame.
Cheers Rob, unfortunately it's not a FF 70D, it's a more basic and affordable 700D which is the most I could justify spending without suffering the wrath of the wife!But basically sensor size wins, bigger is better.
Your 70d and 50/1.8 acts like a 6d/5d3 with an 85mm f2.8 or so on, so the FF cameras always 'beat' the crops and those beat the P&S crowd etc
As for portraits, you can always stop down for more dof! Just bump ISO to compensate for shutter speed.
Also think about your compositions, if the face is flat on then you can shoot with a bigger aperture.
Side on and if you want both eyes in focus you will need to stop down or move back.
The further away the focus point is the more DOF you have. So you can use f1.8 just not for a straight side on headshot that fills the frame.
Nevertheless can I just say thank you for your tips about composition, distance from object and ISO on how make the best use of what I have, and it's certainly providing a great deal of enjoyment with the 50mm lens, plus I have a couple more zoom lenses if required.
In defence of the smaller RX100, it's a very competent compact camera with a reasonably large 1" sensor for its class, and it excels due to the fact that it provides full manual control as well as shutter, and aperture priority modes, plus a multitude of more automatic point and shoot settings, plus it's supremely pocketable and far less conspicuous than any current DSLR. I have achieved some very good Bokeh effects when using it, but generally only be accident, whereas the 700D and 50mm lens the Bokeh effect seems pretty repeatable. I do tend to carry the RX100 around in my jacket most of the time whilst the 700D is taken out for special occasions.
Oh nothing against the rx100, sometimes having more DOF actually helps ( macro, landscape etc).
its just good to be aware of all the factors so you can control it when you want.
Say to maximize it (close subject, distant background, longer focal length, big aperture), or to minimize it ( stop down/small aperture, focus further into scene etc)
its just good to be aware of all the factors so you can control it when you want.
Say to maximize it (close subject, distant background, longer focal length, big aperture), or to minimize it ( stop down/small aperture, focus further into scene etc)
RobDickinson said:
Mr Will said:
Only two things affect depth of field - the aperture and the subject magnification. The first of those is (hopefully) obvious. It's the second that causes confusion.
.. and the focus distance....(yes, I know about hyper-focal distance)
while we are on the subject of sensor size etc it is worth pointing out the other thing that the advertising doesn't mention when they bang on the large aperture lenses you can get on some compact cameras - the smaller the sensor the worse the performance in low light.
The problem is, there are a couple of reasons people want fast (ie large aperture, small f number lenses)
1) shallow depth of field for artistic shots with out of focus backgrounds
2) the ability to hand hold (ie get a decent shutter speed) in low light
We have dealt with 1) and shown it is doesn't help as the depth of field gets proportionally larger as the sensor gets smaller and the lens focal length gets less (for equivalent field of view)
So lets look at 2). Yes, on the face of it a f/2.8 lens is going allow more light in than a f/5.6 so, for given lighting levels, you can have a faster shutter speed so avoid camera shake without a tripod etc. Great stuff so far.
But there is a catch, the smaller sensor camera has smaller photosites (pixels) so (given the same sensor technology) has worse sensor performance - specifically image noise will be worse so image quality will be worse.
How do you change the noise performance of a sensor? You change the ISO setting. So (theoretically) to get the same image quality on a small sensor you need a lower ISO setting that needed for a large sensor.
So, take two cameras
1" sensor camera: f2.8 aperture, 1/100s shutter, iso100
APS-C sensor: f8, 1/100s shutter, iso800
If I have done my sums right both are the same exposure settings so will have equal exposure end results. As discussed earlier, both will have approximate the same depth of field. As both have the same shutter speed there should be no difference in camera shake etc. Lastly, because of the larger pixels on the APS-C it has the capability of producing the same image quality with respect to noise etc.
Bottom line, the fact that small sensor cameras can have larger aperture lenses in smaller/cheaper packages is all smoke and mirrors and has no affect on the picture taking, all it does is mean you have to use different settings (ISO, focal lengths, apertures etc) to get the same affect as a aps-c or ff camera.
It does get worse though, all camera sensors need other circuitry on the sensor aside from the actual photosites themselves. Think it as a loads of buckets, one for each pixel. When exposed to light the buckets fill up. How full they get determines how bright that pixel is.
The trouble is, the camera needs to measure how full each bucket is, so the buckets cannot be jammed right next to each other, there needs to be a bit of space round them to house the measurement and control stuff. So to get that space (without changing the overall size of the sensor) you need to make the buckets smaller. Now any light hitting the space between those buckets is wasted. Your buckets are not as efficient at catching it so your performance drops.
The problem is, if you make your sensor smaller you have to make your photosites (buckets) smaller but the space between them for the controls stuff cannot be made smaller (by the same proportion anyway). So the smaller the sensor is, the less of the overall sensor is covered by actual photosites and the more is wasted by other stuff. So the sensor becomes less efficient the smaller it is.
Now manufacturers have worked very had to reduce this affect, better sensor designs mean less "wastage", better processing algorithms mean the poor noise performance is hidden better but bottom line is that physics says the big is good, small is bad.
That is not to say that small sensor cameras are a bad thing. Not everyone needs the ultimate in low light image performance and not everyone wants to carry around £10,000 and 10kg weight in pro level dslr and lenses. Horses for courses but just remember you can never get something for free.
The problem is, there are a couple of reasons people want fast (ie large aperture, small f number lenses)
1) shallow depth of field for artistic shots with out of focus backgrounds
2) the ability to hand hold (ie get a decent shutter speed) in low light
We have dealt with 1) and shown it is doesn't help as the depth of field gets proportionally larger as the sensor gets smaller and the lens focal length gets less (for equivalent field of view)
So lets look at 2). Yes, on the face of it a f/2.8 lens is going allow more light in than a f/5.6 so, for given lighting levels, you can have a faster shutter speed so avoid camera shake without a tripod etc. Great stuff so far.
But there is a catch, the smaller sensor camera has smaller photosites (pixels) so (given the same sensor technology) has worse sensor performance - specifically image noise will be worse so image quality will be worse.
How do you change the noise performance of a sensor? You change the ISO setting. So (theoretically) to get the same image quality on a small sensor you need a lower ISO setting that needed for a large sensor.
So, take two cameras
1" sensor camera: f2.8 aperture, 1/100s shutter, iso100
APS-C sensor: f8, 1/100s shutter, iso800
If I have done my sums right both are the same exposure settings so will have equal exposure end results. As discussed earlier, both will have approximate the same depth of field. As both have the same shutter speed there should be no difference in camera shake etc. Lastly, because of the larger pixels on the APS-C it has the capability of producing the same image quality with respect to noise etc.
Bottom line, the fact that small sensor cameras can have larger aperture lenses in smaller/cheaper packages is all smoke and mirrors and has no affect on the picture taking, all it does is mean you have to use different settings (ISO, focal lengths, apertures etc) to get the same affect as a aps-c or ff camera.
It does get worse though, all camera sensors need other circuitry on the sensor aside from the actual photosites themselves. Think it as a loads of buckets, one for each pixel. When exposed to light the buckets fill up. How full they get determines how bright that pixel is.
The trouble is, the camera needs to measure how full each bucket is, so the buckets cannot be jammed right next to each other, there needs to be a bit of space round them to house the measurement and control stuff. So to get that space (without changing the overall size of the sensor) you need to make the buckets smaller. Now any light hitting the space between those buckets is wasted. Your buckets are not as efficient at catching it so your performance drops.
The problem is, if you make your sensor smaller you have to make your photosites (buckets) smaller but the space between them for the controls stuff cannot be made smaller (by the same proportion anyway). So the smaller the sensor is, the less of the overall sensor is covered by actual photosites and the more is wasted by other stuff. So the sensor becomes less efficient the smaller it is.
Now manufacturers have worked very had to reduce this affect, better sensor designs mean less "wastage", better processing algorithms mean the poor noise performance is hidden better but bottom line is that physics says the big is good, small is bad.
That is not to say that small sensor cameras are a bad thing. Not everyone needs the ultimate in low light image performance and not everyone wants to carry around £10,000 and 10kg weight in pro level dslr and lenses. Horses for courses but just remember you can never get something for free.
RobDickinson said:
Oh nothing against the rx100, sometimes having more DOF actually helps ( macro, landscape etc).
its just good to be aware of all the factors so you can control it when you want.
Say to maximize it (close subject, distant background, longer focal length, big aperture), or to minimize it ( stop down/small aperture, focus further into scene etc)
I think there is a bit of a case to be made for taking an RX100 vs APS-C mirrorless in some instances, especially if you wanted a compact set up and don't really make use of shallow DoF often. Certainly I think the RX100 is capable of shallow DoF, it just takes a little more work because of the sensor size.its just good to be aware of all the factors so you can control it when you want.
Say to maximize it (close subject, distant background, longer focal length, big aperture), or to minimize it ( stop down/small aperture, focus further into scene etc)
Now, a decent lens for Sony mirrorless with a similar range to the one on the RX100 is the Ziess 16-70 (or closer to the actual effective focal range is the 16-50 kit lens). But the issue here is the Ziess is F4 maximum and the kit is 3.5-5.6. Now the kit lens isn't very big but the Ziess is quite large, quite expensive and apparently not really up to the usual Ziess image quality (or it is and they have QC issues according to Photozone.de)
Now on the kit lens at around 45 mm (70mm effective) you have f5.6, on the rx100, f2.8. On FF thats 70mm each and f8.4 for the APSC and f7.5 for the RX100.
If you had the Ziess lens you are f6 equivalent so better in terms of achieving shallow DoF, but not by much. And at what cost? Its £650 according to WEX, for a lens that might be decidedly average. It does give you a bit more reach though going to an effective 105 mm.
But my point is this set up is very much larger than the RX100 and if you want to go better on IQ and DoF ability then they really can't beat physics and you end up with large, heavy lenses, negating the whole point of the compact mirrorless system IMO. That or a fist full of primes to cover 3 or so bases in the focal range. Then you really have to ask is it worth it to me to carry a bag of kit around vs something that'll slip in a coat pocket?
this is forgetting that the APS-C likely has better ISO performance and better dynamic range ability though. But for the lenses Sony has available that are of reasonable size/price, I don't think you actually give up much at all by opting to take an RX100 in the pocket over say an A6000 + lenses in a bag.
More very useful information to take in, though it would seem that larger format cameras are perhaps better at achieving this affect than the smaller point and shoot variety. Seems that the general public are being taken in by the mega pixel count marketing rather than the sensor size and type of lens being used which is probably far more important.
I now understand why I've sometimes managed to achieve the Bokeh effect. I think the issue is that when you have a camera with a zoom lens you do tend to be a bit lazy and zoom in with the lens instead of walking backwards or forwards to achieve the same shot as when using a fixed lens.
To anyone following this thread, I found a very interesting article on a journal written by Peter Hill with the title 'The Easy Guide To Understanding Aperture (f Stop)' which does explain the principles in plain English along with several example photographs. To anyone still struggling to get their head round what is going on then take a look, link is: http://www.redbubble.com/people/peterh111/journal/...
It's rather ironic that I can't play with the settings as per all the advice given because my trusty RX100 is currently out of use and has been sent back to Sony tech for a firmware update, it's been acting up for several weeks now so I initialised it as per the advice from Sony which restored it to factory settings, but it steadfast refused to update the firmware to the latest version despite following all the steps provided for the install. Hopefully will have it back in the next couple of weeks!
In the meantime will have a play around with the settings on the 700D to see if I can improve the results.
I now understand why I've sometimes managed to achieve the Bokeh effect. I think the issue is that when you have a camera with a zoom lens you do tend to be a bit lazy and zoom in with the lens instead of walking backwards or forwards to achieve the same shot as when using a fixed lens.
To anyone following this thread, I found a very interesting article on a journal written by Peter Hill with the title 'The Easy Guide To Understanding Aperture (f Stop)' which does explain the principles in plain English along with several example photographs. To anyone still struggling to get their head round what is going on then take a look, link is: http://www.redbubble.com/people/peterh111/journal/...
It's rather ironic that I can't play with the settings as per all the advice given because my trusty RX100 is currently out of use and has been sent back to Sony tech for a firmware update, it's been acting up for several weeks now so I initialised it as per the advice from Sony which restored it to factory settings, but it steadfast refused to update the firmware to the latest version despite following all the steps provided for the install. Hopefully will have it back in the next couple of weeks!
In the meantime will have a play around with the settings on the 700D to see if I can improve the results.
Mr Will said:
There speaks a landscape photographer! Technically true, but only if you are willing to focus on something other your subject...
(yes, I know about hyper-focal distance)
There speaks the photographer. Yes you have to focus on the subject but you dont have to keep the distance to your subject the same. we have different focal lengths. (yes, I know about hyper-focal distance)
RobDickinson said:
Mr Will said:
There speaks a landscape photographer! Technically true, but only if you are willing to focus on something other your subject...
(yes, I know about hyper-focal distance)
There speaks the photographer. Yes you have to focus on the subject but you dont have to keep the distance to your subject the same. we have different focal lengths. (yes, I know about hyper-focal distance)
Mr Will said:
RobDickinson said:
Mr Will said:
There speaks a landscape photographer! Technically true, but only if you are willing to focus on something other your subject...
(yes, I know about hyper-focal distance)
There speaks the photographer. Yes you have to focus on the subject but you dont have to keep the distance to your subject the same. we have different focal lengths. (yes, I know about hyper-focal distance)
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff