CP5000 Lens Joke

For portraits, if you need more background blur than the
85 mm at f/4.8 gives, you can simply focus a couple of feet
in front of your model. Thus you'll be compensating and getting
the effect of 1 or 2 wider f-stops by using the empty space between
you and the model. Simpler than PhotoShop...

AntoineB.

Tyler Monson said:

As I understand your posting, you are saying that we should not buy
the CoolPix 5000 because the lens does not zoom beyond 85 mm
(equivalent) and, at this focal length, the maximum aperture is
f/4.8.

Personally, I am going to buy it because of the lens (and 5 Mpixels
and small size). While, within limits, you can crop an image file
to include less, there is nothing you can do to include more, so I
want the wide (28 mm equivalent) end of the zoom range and am
willing to sacrifice the narrow end.

For head-and-shoulder portraits, the 85-90 mm focal length on the
35-mm format has been considered ideal for the perspective it
produces. Longer and shorter focal lengths produce a less natural
perspective.

As for out-of-focus backgrounds, all of these small CCD digital
cameras are at a natural disadvantage because, as another poster
has pointed out, a short focal-length lens, even at a large f/stop
is going to produce more depth-of-field.

The solution is simple: use Photoshop to blur or otherwise modify
the background. This will give you far more control than anything
available in conventional photography, where people have even
smeared petroleum jelly on filters to blur the backgrounds.

Click to expand...

That's certainly true. As a new convert to digital after 25 years using 35mm, 120 and 5*4 (stopped down to f32!) the depth of field on the CP950 lens seems incredible, even effectively wide open. It is of course due to the tiny absolute focal length

C-K Shene said:

Roger Kampert said:

True, the lens of the CP5000 is actually a 7mm-21mm zoom lens. But
what I described above is true of all lenses, prime or zoom,
digital or medium format. DOF is mainly controlled by how large or
small the aperture opening is and the focussing distance from
camera to subject.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, did you forget film size (or CCD size), or image size. A
lens must have smaller circle of confusion to maintain the
sharpness of an image on a small size image. As a result, the DOF
is considerable larger with digital camera lenses than with 35mm
camera, which, in turn, have larger DOF than 120 cameras. My page
at http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam has the details.

CK

Click to expand...

The extra sharpness comes from a number of things but it's true that part of the story is the absolute aperture size. The smaller the hole, the more off-axis light is blocked by the iris blades. This means only the light most parallel to the lens axis (and therefore easy to bring to focus light) reaches the sensor.

johnny said:

your right and your wrong . . .

Ive recently run a few test shots, actually just for image
comparison, between the olympus c4040, coolpix 950, and nikon D1. I
shot all the images in the same consitions, within a matter of
seconds of each other.

The D1 was mounted with a 50mm 1.4 lens, then I zoomed in half way
on both of the others to get the equivalent "crop" in the LCD.

Heres the Exif info:
C4040 12.2mm F5 1/500th ISO 100 HQ orig. file size 747kb
CP950 15.6mm F6 1/215th ISO 80 Fine orig. file size 739kb
D1 50mm F5 1/750th ISO 200 RAW orig. file size 3.86mb

Notes: ISO settings were all set to the lowest setting possible.
Aperture on cp950 was slightly off due to its “odd” ISO
80.

What I discovered was that the D1 with its lens did a much better
job of blurring the background. It really seems as though I shot
the D1 wide open when compared to the others. Im not sure that the
1.4 should be that big a difference when the c4040 has a 1.8
throughout. The other two looked pretty much identical.

I wonder if it has to do with the digital camera lenses being so
small, where the opening of F5 on a small lens is about the same
size as F22 on a larger one. Just a guess. Remember, less light,
smaller opening, equates larger DOP.

So, in conclusion, that F5 on the coolpix 5000, is truly a let
down. If the c4040 can have a 1.8, and everyone else have either a
2.0 or 2.8, why couldnt nikon have at least a F3 throughout its
range. Really, toping out at 4.8 at 85mm is really bad. Even 35mm
consumer lenses are 5.6 at 200mm!

Click to expand...

Jee-suey!

Do you complain about your Miata because it won't take the soccer team to an out of town game? No, you get a van. Do you complain about your phillips screwdriver because it won't cook hamburgers? No, you buy a grill. If a camera doesn't work the way you do, don't buy it and shut the he** up.

nice try. but it's not an 85mm lens. it's equivalent to an 85mm lens in magnification relative to a 35mm camera. in fact. it's a 15 or 20 mm lens. and that will give it large DOF even at f5. one of the banes of small ccd's.

and i have to agree with the original post, going from the 138mm equiv to 85mm equiv is not a step forward. going to a slower lens is not a step forward. not having the swivel makes it not a desirable camera. if you don't know what i'm saying, you haven't used a cp9xx camera. try taking a pic of a building, at night, camera on the ground, up at the building. easy with cp995. going to be a bit harder and clumsier with cp5000. i could go on, but nikon missed the mark. might as well be a canon. and it's ugly. i have to guess they want to steer real photographers to the Dxx line. again, i think they missed the mark.

when i heard about the cp5000 and what it was like i felt abandoned. i'll get over it. but i'll keep my 9xx's. and i'll keep using them.
greg

Roger Kampert said:

Thad said:

I know that many rumors exist about the features of any new
and unreleased camera, but this one has my sides splitting with
laughter ! Imagine a company like Nikon making a new product
with an 85mm equiv. f5 aperature lens. No possibility to blur the
background on portraits etc.
This cannot be true.
Do not believe it.
If it is true. dont buy it.
Thad.

Click to expand...

Obviously you don't know much about lenses. f5, or rather f4.5, is
definately not unacceptable for portraits. Especially for an 85mm
lens, the longer the focal length of a lens the shallower the depth
of field (DOF) there will be at all apertures. For example, f4.5
set on a 50mm lens will give more DOF than a 85mm lens set at f4.5.
Or, an 85mm lens at f4.5 will give less DOF than a 50mm set at f4.5
and the backround will be blurred enough for a portrait. Not to
mention that at shallower aperture settings than f4.5 some very
carefull focussing is required so you don't end up with your
subjects nose being perfectly in focus and nothing else.
Furthermore, the focussing distance between camera and subject
affect DOF no matter what aperture is set. The closer the camera is
focussed to the subject, the less DOF there will be for any
aperture setting. And with an 85mm, one still must get reasonably
close to their subject to fill the frame and therefore use a closer
focussing distance, again, blurring the backround.

Click to expand...

you're missin' it. with a 995 and the 2x you have about 300mm equivalent. you can't get resolving power of an analog lens back in photoshop. the beauty of the (older) cp's was the small package for such large range. i already had 24mm equivalent with the .63 coverter, most of the time 38mm is wide enough. and unless they did some magic, it'll have barel distortion and chromatic aberation. on the one hand, they seem to be catering to more serious photographers (price), but on the other, to the P&S crowd (limited zoom, smaller, lots of frilly packaging). if you can put a slip over lens adapter holder on the cp5000, then they could have put a 28mm threaded adapter on it, too. that they didn't is an insult. to me, the whole camera is an insult. greg

AntoineB. said:

AntoineB.

Thad said:

I know that many rumors exist about the features of any new
and unreleased camera, but this one has my sides splitting with
laughter ! Imagine a company like Nikon making a new product
with an 85mm equiv. f5 aperature lens. No possibility to blur the
background on portraits etc.
This cannot be true.
Do not believe it.
If it is true. dont buy it.
Thad.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Tyler Monson said:

As I understand your posting, you are saying that we should not buy
the CoolPix 5000 because the lens does not zoom beyond 85 mm
(equivalent) and, at this focal length, the maximum aperture is
f/4.8.

Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, the introduction of a new camera with a maximum aperture at 85 mm of 4.8 is plainly a very unwise step, and this camera has already been bypassed by far by several manufacturers who have understood that in a digital camera where the ISO is in practice limited to 100 if you want anything near usable picture quality, lens speed is of paramount importance.

Member said:

Personally, I am going to buy it because of the lens (and 5 Mpixels
and small size). While, within limits, you can crop an image file
to include less, there is nothing you can do to include more, so I
want the wide (28 mm equivalent) end of the zoom range and am
willing to sacrifice the narrow end.

Click to expand...

This is another weak point. The limited telephoto at 85 mm means that you are forced to buy a telephoto attachment, which will not only add to the price, but also to the bulk and inconvenience. On top of that, we know what happens to both the picture quality and the speed when these add-on lenses are used.

Member said:

For head-and-shoulder portraits, the 85-90 mm focal length on the
35-mm format has been considered ideal for the perspective it
produces. Longer and shorter focal lengths produce a less natural
perspective.

Click to expand...

I am one who absolutely agrees on that, but that range would have been eminently covered by a 38-105 mm zoom too. The Nikon CP 5000 is, by virtue of its going down to 28 mm equiv. basically a wide-angle camera, to the sacrifize of the longer-end capability.

Member said:

As for concern about the maximum aperture, consider that increasing
the zoom range and/or increasing the maximum f/stop (especially at
the long end of the zoom) requires larger glass and a longer lens
barrel--look at the Sony, where the lens is as long as the entire
camera is wide. This means that you lose all the conveniences of a
highly portable camera (enabling you to have more excuses not to
carry the camera with you) and, more importantly in the case of the
CoolPix, you lose the ability to use the current range of lens
attachments.

Click to expand...

The small maximum aperture is the major drawback of this camera, and the very reason why I am not going to buy it. Yes, a larger aperture would have required a larger glass, such as is found in the Olympus C-4040 and the Sony DSC S-85, just to name two randomly chosen alternatives that both boasts significantly higher speed. I am unaware of either of these cameras being too bulky or heavy to be brought into a pocket or around the neck all day. Regarding the lens attachment, the point is that with the Nikon Coolpix 5000 its limited telephoto ability makes it almost mandatory to buy a telephoto attachment, which definitely adds to the bulk and hence is less likely to be used. Thus, many images would be missed because of both the slow lens and the lack of zoom range in the telephoto area. The difference between 85 and 100 mm+ is significant.

Member said:

I, for one, have spent over $500 US on four of the Nikon
supplemental lenses and greatly appreciate the (not-yet-confirmed)
fact that they will be usable on the CP 5000. Increase the maximum
aperture and/or increase the long end of the zoom and we would need
all new (and much larger) lens attachments.

Click to expand...

There is no reason to doubt that thsese accessories will be usable on the CP 5000. However, they will hardly remedy the inherent slowness of the lens. (To say the least)

Member said:

Any camera design is going to entail compromises. If you want a
particular feature, then buy the camera that has it, but please
don't say that the camera that does not have your desired feature
is bad, because it may well have other features that are more
important to others.

Click to expand...

To introduce a new digital camera in 2001 with an aperture of nearly 5 on its long end renders it unusable in all but the most optimally lit conditions. I have used the Coolpix 950 a lot. While I cannot fault the image quality as such, I find that this model is way too slow. The use of a higher ISO setting than 100 is impossible if you want your pictures to be good. When the Coolpix 5000 has been given a slow lens that renders it nearly unusable for serious outdoor work unless the weather is bright and sunny, it objectively was a major mistake by Nikon.

I can only deplore this, but I cannot buy this slow digicam. I really had wanted to, because as a long-time user of Nikon SLR film cameras, lenses, scanners and binoculars I know the Nikon standard of quality to be exceedingly high. Unfortunately that does not help when the CP 5000 is equipped with an excruciatingly slow lens.

Hap Mullenneaux said:

Roger,
I had to research DOF on digitals last spring because my wife was
going to use whatever we bought mainly for head shots with very
limited DOF. The sad truth is that DOF is based on the actual not
effective focal length. We could not find any digital with an
attached zoom that blurred the backround enough for our purposes
and bought a Canon D30 which has really helped my wife's portrait
business. If you have experience with large and medium format,
then this DOF issue will be nothing new. DOF is very precious on
large format where a 210mm is a normal lens. On a digital like the
new 5000 a normal lens is about 15mm and DOF is abundant whether
you want it or not.
BTW I look forward to buying the 5000 for myself. I do mostly
landscapes and macro.
Hap

Click to expand...

Okay , I think I agree with you. But I would like you to elaborate on what exactly you think the differance is between DOF with digicams and film cameras. To me a lens is a lens and a light sensative CCD or piece of celluloid (film) is exactly that, a light sensative CCD or a piece of celluloid (film). And if 15mm is the CP5000's "normal" focal length it would be equivalent to a 50mm in 35mm format terms which are known to give a lot more DOF at 4.5 than an 85mm at 4.5. I am not trying to start an argument here but your statement doesn't explain what you mean to me. Are you saying that DOF can't be calculated for all focal lenghts of a zoom lens? If so why did most of my zoom lenses come with charts to do so when I bought them? Furthermore I have recently read that with a zoom lens that has a variable aperture the only apertures that change are the widest ones. What I mean is when your zoom is at 28mm or 7mm and set to f8, and you zoom in to 85mm or 21mm your aperture is still at f8. However it has been my experiance that while the aperture stays the same the range of DOF when changing focal lenghts does change. So f8 at 28mm is pretty darn good if you want everything in the scene of your photo to be in focus. But when you zoom in to 85mm and check the DOF preview if there is one you will see that the area in your composed image has less in focus that it did at 28mm. I have found this to be even more true if the subject is close to the camera. BTW I also have an interest in 'macro' though I use zooms and not actual macro lenses. Also when I am shooting a wedding I usually calculate the hyperfocal distance of the lens I am using and free myself from having to manually focus every shot. I get great results doing this and I fully understand DOF, focal length, camera to subject focus distance and the relationship all three of these factors in composing an effective photograph film or digital. I haven't seen any differance between film or digital regarding DOF and if there is one I would like a full explination.

Member said:

Roger Kampert wrote:

Click to expand...

Roger,

Ermac said:

if 15mm is the
CP5000's "normal" focal length it would be equivalent to a 50mm in
35mm format terms which are known to give a lot more DOF

Click to expand...

It has equivalent magnification and angle of view but the DOF is like a 15mm lens on a 35mm film camera.

Ermac said:

Are you saying
that DOF can't be calculated for all focal lenghts of a zoom lens?

Click to expand...

It can but you need to use the focal lengths on the front of the lens not the 35mm equivalents.

I will try in the next few days to bring together my daughter's digital elf S300, my wife's D30 and my sister's Elan II (as you can see we haven't been spending much time at the Nikon forum:
For macro the abundant DOF on the digitals can be a real boon.
Hap

Hap Mullenneaux said:

Member said:

if 15mm is the
CP5000's "normal" focal length it would be equivalent to a 50mm in
35mm format terms which are known to give a lot more DOF

Click to expand...

It has equivalent magnification and angle of view but the DOF is
like a 15mm lens on a 35mm film camera.

Member said:

Are you saying
that DOF can't be calculated for all focal lenghts of a zoom lens?

Click to expand...

It can but you need to use the focal lengths on the front of the
lens not the 35mm equivalents.
I will try in the next few days to bring together my daughter's
digital elf S300, my wife's D30 and my sister's Elan II (as you can
see we haven't been spending much time at the Nikon forum:
will set up a tripod and a scene to show the differences in DOF.
The maximum effective focal length on the S300 is 105mm which it
achieves with a 16.2mm lens. I'll shoot the scene with the elf on
a tripod at 105mm, f/4.7 (max). Then I'll put the D30 on the
tripod and set a zoom for 66mm. The D30 has a focal length
multiplier of 1.6 so 66mm will yield an effective focal length of
about 105mm. Again, f/4.7 or as close as I can come. Finally,
I'll put a 100mm lens on the ElanII and shoot again at f/4.7. The
results will be posted on a page for all to see and I promise some
dramatic differences in DOF. Others can do the same.
For macro the abundant DOF on the digitals can be a real boon.
Hap

Click to expand...

Your right about the lens' focal length when you put a piece of film behind it, it is still going to be a 15mm lens. And the widest aperture of the lens would probably f32 or something. I am not saying that this is a 35mm lens and neither is Nikon. Now, the lens on this camera is a 7-21mm zoom. But that does not mean that it will give the DOF of a 35mm format wide angle lens like a 21mm. This is because the CCD in the camera is smaller than a frame of 35mm film I am talking in terms of not only the lens put the CCD being scaled up to the equivalent size of 35mm format. BTW there are examples of DOF here on this sight using a digicam with a built in zoom and it looks just llike the results you'd get from a film camera.

The difference in f/stops between digital cameras and 35mm
film cameras has been calculated to about 4 f/stops. In other words
f/1.8 on a film camera is equivalent to f/8 on digicams! (excluding
digital SLRs). Your example will certainly demonstrate
this. The CP5000 favors wide angle to the delight of certain
photographers. I realize most people prefer the big zoom and
this won't be their camera. A zoom version of the CP5000 would
not be surprising to fill the needs of zoomers.

AntoineB.

Hap Mullenneaux said:

I will try in the next few days to bring together my daughter's
digital elf S300, my wife's D30 and my sister's Elan II (as you can
see we haven't been spending much time at the Nikon forum:
will set up a tripod and a scene to show the differences in DOF.
The maximum effective focal length on the S300 is 105mm which it
achieves with a 16.2mm lens. I'll shoot the scene with the elf on
a tripod at 105mm, f/4.7 (max). Then I'll put the D30 on the
tripod and set a zoom for 66mm. The D30 has a focal length
multiplier of 1.6 so 66mm will yield an effective focal length of
about 105mm. Again, f/4.7 or as close as I can come. Finally,
I'll put a 100mm lens on the ElanII and shoot again at f/4.7. The
results will be posted on a page for all to see and I promise some
dramatic differences in DOF. Others can do the same.
For macro the abundant DOF on the digitals can be a real boon.
Hap

Click to expand...

AntoineB. said:

The difference in f/stops between digital cameras and 35mm
film cameras has been calculated to about 4 f/stops. In other words
f/1.8 on a film camera is equivalent to f/8 on digicams! (excluding
digital SLRs). Your example will certainly demonstrate
this. The CP5000 favors wide angle to the delight of certain
photographers. I realize most people prefer the big zoom and
this won't be their camera. A zoom version of the CP5000 would
not be surprising to fill the needs of zoomers.

AntoineB.

Click to expand...

Please post your source for this information. Then explain how Phil's examples of DOF in the Glossery section of this very website using a Canon Pro70 set at f2.4 and f8 are different than film. Also the CP5000 has a 7-21mm zoom lens this is (if it were a 35mm film format P&S camera) equivalent to a 28-85mm. It is not a 7-21mm Zoom in terms of supe rwide angle.

AntoineB #56670 said:

Hap Mullenneaux said:

I will try in the next few days to bring together my daughter's
digital elf S300, my wife's D30 and my sister's Elan II (as you can
see we haven't been spending much time at the Nikon forum:
will set up a tripod and a scene to show the differences in DOF.
The maximum effective focal length on the S300 is 105mm which it
achieves with a 16.2mm lens. I'll shoot the scene with the elf on
a tripod at 105mm, f/4.7 (max). Then I'll put the D30 on the
tripod and set a zoom for 66mm. The D30 has a focal length
multiplier of 1.6 so 66mm will yield an effective focal length of
about 105mm. Again, f/4.7 or as close as I can come. Finally,
I'll put a 100mm lens on the ElanII and shoot again at f/4.7. The
results will be posted on a page for all to see and I promise some
dramatic differences in DOF. Others can do the same.
For macro the abundant DOF on the digitals can be a real boon.
Hap

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

AntoineB. said:

For portraits, if you need more background blur than the
85 mm at f/4.8 gives, you can simply focus a couple of feet
in front of your model. Thus you'll be compensating and getting
the effect of 1 or 2 wider f-stops by using the empty space between
you and the model. Simpler than PhotoShop...

AntoineB.

Click to expand...

You are completely wrong about this. This technique will do the exact opposite of what you say. Want proof? Go to the Glossary on this sight Click on Optical, then Depth of Field. Phil Explains this very well.

AntoineB #56670 said:

Tyler Monson said:

As I understand your posting, you are saying that we should not buy
the CoolPix 5000 because the lens does not zoom beyond 85 mm
(equivalent) and, at this focal length, the maximum aperture is
f/4.8.

Personally, I am going to buy it because of the lens (and 5 Mpixels
and small size). While, within limits, you can crop an image file
to include less, there is nothing you can do to include more, so I
want the wide (28 mm equivalent) end of the zoom range and am
willing to sacrifice the narrow end.

For head-and-shoulder portraits, the 85-90 mm focal length on the
35-mm format has been considered ideal for the perspective it
produces. Longer and shorter focal lengths produce a less natural
perspective.

As for out-of-focus backgrounds, all of these small CCD digital
cameras are at a natural disadvantage because, as another poster
has pointed out, a short focal-length lens, even at a large f/stop
is going to produce more depth-of-field.

The solution is simple: use Photoshop to blur or otherwise modify
the background. This will give you far more control than anything
available in conventional photography, where people have even
smeared petroleum jelly on filters to blur the backgrounds.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

johnny said:

thank you, exactly my point

I never said that I didnt like the 5000, heck, nobody has ever
really seen it yet!

just ask yourself why all digicams top out at about F10 or so,
thats why I equated it with an F22, maybe I should have said F16.

but please relax, I wasnt attacking the lens nor camera, just
making an observation on DOP.

Do the research, "seeing is beleiving"

Click to expand...

Seeing is believing? Please allow me to direct you to the Glossary page on this website. Click Optical then Click Depth of Field. You will find examples of DOF created by Phil using a Canon Pro70 Set at f2.4 and f8. Now if you ask me f2.4 on this camera sure looks like f2.4 on any onther camera or lens with that setting. So does f8. How come f2.4 on the Canon Pro70 doesn't look like what would be f6.4 according to you? And why doesn't f8 look like f16 or f22? It is after all this cameras smallest aperture setting.

Phil's glossary on depth of field only confirmed the point
I was trying to make. Since depth of field on this camera
is limited, I was suggesting one way to fool the camera's
exessive DOF due to high f/stops. Sorry if I wasn't clear in
my example.

AntoineB.

Roger Kampert said:

You are completely wrong about this. This technique will do the
exact opposite of what you say. Want proof? Go to the Glossary on
this sight Click on Optical, then Depth of Field. Phil Explains
this very well.

Click to expand...

I'll give you 2 sources. This stuff is quite scientific and
I'm expecting that Hap Mullenneaux's DOF experiment will confirm this.
OK, I'm disapointed too since I would love to get short depth of field
for portraits. I still like the camera since it provides for 95% of my needs.
The other alternative is a Canon D30 for $2500 plus lenses.

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/dof/

http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/990/EXPOSURE/EV-depth-of-field.html

AntoineB.

Ermac said:

AntoineB. said:

The difference in f/stops between digital cameras and 35mm
film cameras has been calculated to about 4 f/stops. In other words
f/1.8 on a film camera is equivalent to f/8 on digicams! (excluding
digital SLRs). Your example will certainly demonstrate
this. The CP5000 favors wide angle to the delight of certain
photographers. I realize most people prefer the big zoom and
this won't be their camera. A zoom version of the CP5000 would
not be surprising to fill the needs of zoomers.

AntoineB.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Roger Kampert said:

Ermac said:

Hap Mullenneaux said:

I will try in the next few days to bring together my daughter's
digital elf S300, my wife's D30 and my sister's Elan II (as you can
see we haven't been spending much time at the Nikon forum:
will set up a tripod and a scene to show the differences in DOF.
The maximum effective focal length on the S300 is 105mm which it
achieves with a 16.2mm lens. I'll shoot the scene with the elf on
a tripod at 105mm, f/4.7 (max). Then I'll put the D30 on the
tripod and set a zoom for 66mm. The D30 has a focal length
multiplier of 1.6 so 66mm will yield an effective focal length of
about 105mm. Again, f/4.7 or as close as I can come. Finally,
I'll put a 100mm lens on the ElanII and shoot again at f/4.7. The
results will be posted on a page for all to see and I promise some
dramatic differences in DOF. Others can do the same.
For macro the abundant DOF on the digitals can be a real boon.
Hap

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

AntoineB said:

Phil's glossary on depth of field only confirmed the point
I was trying to make. Since depth of field on this camera
is limited, I was suggesting one way to fool the camera's
exessive DOF due to high f/stops. Sorry if I wasn't clear in
my example.

AntoineB.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I can't comprehend the words "Gain more Depth of Field". I interpret this as the when you focus "in front" of the main subject the lens aperture will stop down (get smaller) and give or gain more DOF.

Sorry

AntoineB #56670 said:

Roger Kampert said:

You are completely wrong about this. This technique will do the
exact opposite of what you say. Want proof? Go to the Glossary on
this sight Click on Optical, then Depth of Field. Phil Explains
this very well.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Even though the 85mm f4.5 spec fo the cp5000 is not as good as what some of the other digicams offer, in real world usage, it would not make much of a difference when it comes to depth of field in the telephoto range. Since most of the small consumer digicams are still using tiny ccd's along with lenses with specs like 7mm-21mm, your depth of field will be huge. Everything will be in focus all the time whether you like it or not. The only way to blur out the background with these cameras is to physically move closer to the subject.

That's why for the past year I've been waiting for the digital camera of my dreams:

A rangefinder body like the Canon G1 or Nikon CP5000. A large CCD, maybe about as big as the D30. Interchangable lenses consisting of a 35mm equiv of 20, 24, 35, 50, 85mm, and a telephoto of some sort. A zoom or two, one wide angle and one telephoto. Use the LCD as the viewfinder like most people do already anyway. In other words, a camera just like a Contax G2 except it's digital, and with a swivel screen on the back.

Price the camera around $1500, and the lenses at around $300-$500, and I think you would have the most popular and versitile digital camera around. Not big like an slr, and not crippled like the consumer digicams that are out now.

Thad said:

I know that many rumors exist about the features of any new
and unreleased camera, but this one has my sides splitting with
laughter ! Imagine a company like Nikon making a new product
with an 85mm equiv. f5 aperature lens. No possibility to blur the
background on portraits etc.
This cannot be true.
Do not believe it.
If it is true. dont buy it.
Thad.

Click to expand...

AntoineB said:

I'll give you 2 sources. This stuff is quite scientific and
I'm expecting that Hap Mullenneaux's DOF experiment will confirm this.
OK, I'm disapointed too since I would love to get short depth of field
for portraits. I still like the camera since it provides for 95% of
my needs.
The other alternative is a Canon D30 for $2500 plus lenses.

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/dof/

http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/990/EXPOSURE/EV-depth-of-field.html

AntoineB.

Click to expand...

Okay, I've visited the web pages you have kindly provided and thank you very much for doing so! I have to admit that I don't quite grasp the formula, on wrotniak.net. But I think I understand the DOF tables provided. Now according to these, a digicam lens at the focal length of 96 35mm format millimeters or around 20 or so digicam millimeters, with an aperture of f5.6 (I rounded up since f4.8 for the CP5000 is not listed and even though f4 is probably closer to f4.8) the DOF or the subject area in focus is between 2.37 meters to 4.10 meters. While a 35mm camera would render the subject area in focus to be between 2.85 meters to 3.17 meters this does not seem to me to be a very large difference. And this would explain why Phil's example of shallow DOF using a Canon Pro70 at f2.4 looks like f2.4 and not f11 as this rule would dictate. Of course I could be reading it wrong and should take f5.6 and then count four stops to f22 and take the results of the subject area in focus given as 1.46 meters to infinity.

Roger

AntoineB #56670 said:

AntoineB #56670 said:

AntoineB. said:

The difference in f/stops between digital cameras and 35mm
film cameras has been calculated to about 4 f/stops. In other words
f/1.8 on a film camera is equivalent to f/8 on digicams! (excluding
digital SLRs). Your example will certainly demonstrate
this. The CP5000 favors wide angle to the delight of certain
photographers. I realize most people prefer the big zoom and
this won't be their camera. A zoom version of the CP5000 would
not be surprising to fill the needs of zoomers.

AntoineB.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Roger Kampert said:

AntoineB #56670 said:

Hap Mullenneaux said:

I will try in the next few days to bring together my daughter's
digital elf S300, my wife's D30 and my sister's Elan II (as you can
see we haven't been spending much time at the Nikon forum:
will set up a tripod and a scene to show the differences in DOF.
The maximum effective focal length on the S300 is 105mm which it
achieves with a 16.2mm lens. I'll shoot the scene with the elf on
a tripod at 105mm, f/4.7 (max). Then I'll put the D30 on the
tripod and set a zoom for 66mm. The D30 has a focal length
multiplier of 1.6 so 66mm will yield an effective focal length of
about 105mm. Again, f/4.7 or as close as I can come. Finally,
I'll put a 100mm lens on the ElanII and shoot again at f/4.7. The
results will be posted on a page for all to see and I promise some
dramatic differences in DOF. Others can do the same.
For macro the abundant DOF on the digitals can be a real boon.
Hap

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hmm. looks like I started something here.
The fact is that the lens on the cp990 though small was superb and

fast and had internal focussing. Yes, the new camera needed a hot shoe and more pixels are better but why they needed to go to a slower and shorter lens is beyond me. Why not simply stay with the original optics or
equivalent.?

I can only think it is the "watering the soup" mentality, perhaps the camera would cut into the need for the pro lineup somewhat.

Internal focus is important to attach the camera to scopes/microscopes etc and while this may be possible with the 5000 it is not going to be as easy and I am curious if the motor that moves the lens will be able to handle the 2x converter + b300 combo or other heavy combos.

The swivel was a dubious innovation at best, which had some use but more often was a pain and to mount extenders and flash you needed to purchase a wing adaptor or something to prevent the whole thing from flopping down (on the 990). Putting the flash cord attachment on the bottom of the camera was absurd. The neck of the cord extened so far down that it was a problem. Moving the internal flash higher in the 995 really did little for red eye improvement as the flash was still to close to the lens axis to make much of a difference.

If the camera can use extenal speedlights like the sb28 dx and has true TTL metering (which remains to be seen) the need for a serious amature photograher to purchase the D1 line would be reduced in my opinion.

Hence the "new and improved optics" which position this camera squarely in the cardboard throw away arena.