Reading mode: Light Dark

G2 Depth of Field disappoints me

Go to last post
A

Amal Schmitz

Well-known member
Messages
166
Reaction score
0
Location
Troy, MI, US
Well, I did some testing on my boys this evening outdoors. Frankly I am quite disappointed in the depth of field of the G2. I had the aperture set to f2.0 and had my kids in the foreground (approx 2 ft from camera) and trees in the background (approx 25 ft from camera). The intent, of course is to throw the background out of focus. Au Contrair,,,,The trees were not out of focus very much at all - they looked quite clear in fact.

This disappoints me - perhaps I am missing something, not sure, but I do have a pretty solid understanding of depth of field, aperture/shutter relationships, etc. And even more, the dpreview.com review gave it outstanding results in the depth of field category and even showed examples! Mine sure didn't look that way.

--
Amal Elaine Schmitz
 
Did you try using macro mode? You'd probably get pretty good results under the conditions that you described. Most of my close-up flower shots were taken with the camera on automatic using macro mode. Here they are if you want to see them. http://www.pbase.com/gonpostal/macro (Keep in mind I'm pretty new to photography)
Amal Schmitz said:
Well, I did some testing on my boys this evening outdoors. Frankly
I am quite disappointed in the depth of field of the G2. I had the
aperture set to f2.0 and had my kids in the foreground (approx 2 ft
from camera) and trees in the background (approx 25 ft from
camera). The intent, of course is to throw the background out of
focus. Au Contrair,,,,The trees were not out of focus very much at
all - they looked quite clear in fact.

This disappoints me - perhaps I am missing something, not sure, but
I do have a pretty solid understanding of depth of field,
aperture/shutter relationships, etc. And even more, the
dpreview.com review gave it outstanding results in the depth of
field category and even showed examples! Mine sure didn't look
that way.

--
Amal Elaine Schmitz
Click to expand...
 
If it's anything like the G1 - You will be sadly dissapointed in the massive depth of field. It's not just limited to Canon G1 / G2 however. This seems to be a condition with most digital cameras. Although I love my G1 and have used the hell out of it, I miss shallow depth of field so much that I am going to get another SLR just for those types of shots. You don't hear many people talk about the DOF issue in this regard but it can be a big one - especially if you come from the school of "choose depth of field or aperature then determine shutter". Oh well, gotta have both to get it all :)

Bill
Amal Schmitz said:
Well, I did some testing on my boys this evening outdoors. Frankly
I am quite disappointed in the depth of field of the G2. I had the
aperture set to f2.0 and had my kids in the foreground (approx 2 ft
from camera) and trees in the background (approx 25 ft from
camera). The intent, of course is to throw the background out of
focus. Au Contrair,,,,The trees were not out of focus very much at
all - they looked quite clear in fact.

This disappoints me - perhaps I am missing something, not sure, but
I do have a pretty solid understanding of depth of field,
aperture/shutter relationships, etc. And even more, the
dpreview.com review gave it outstanding results in the depth of
field category and even showed examples! Mine sure didn't look
that way.

--
Amal Elaine Schmitz
Click to expand...
 
Amal Schmitz said:
Well, I did some testing on my boys this evening outdoors. Frankly
I am quite disappointed in the depth of field of the G2. I had the
aperture set to f2.0 and had my kids in the foreground (approx 2 ft
from camera) and trees in the background (approx 25 ft from
camera). The intent, of course is to throw the background out of
focus. Au Contrair,,,,The trees were not out of focus very much at
all - they looked quite clear in fact.
Click to expand...
In digital cameras such as the G2 in which the focal multiplier (ratio between actual lens focal length and the "effective" length from the 35-mm world perspective) is about 5, the depth of field is similar to a 35mm camera with the F-stop set about 4 stops higher. Thus, even at F2.0, you are effectively looking at the DOF you'd see at F6.0 in a 35mm. It's a relatively deep DOF, unfortunately. The only way around it is to wait for cameras with multipliers near 1 or to throw the background out of focus using software such as Photoshop.
 
Thanks, but no I did not try macro mode. I am planning on shooting a family of fifteen next week and was contemplating dropping my film camera (Canon A2, love it) for the digital, since I've had such good results in my studio with it. My testing led me to believe that perhaps I should stick with my A2 for now.

Thanks!
gonpostal said:
Did you try using macro mode? You'd probably get pretty good
results under the conditions that you described. Most of my
close-up flower shots were taken with the camera on automatic using
macro mode. Here they are if you want to see them.
http://www.pbase.com/gonpostal/macro (Keep in mind I'm pretty new
to photography)
Click to expand...
 
Your flower pictures look very good :-)
Ivan
============
gonpostal said:
Amal Schmitz said:
Well, I did some testing on my boys this evening outdoors. Frankly
I am quite disappointed in the depth of field of the G2. I had the
aperture set to f2.0 and had my kids in the foreground (approx 2 ft
from camera) and trees in the background (approx 25 ft from
camera). The intent, of course is to throw the background out of
focus. Au Contrair,,,,The trees were not out of focus very much at
all - they looked quite clear in fact.

This disappoints me - perhaps I am missing something, not sure, but
I do have a pretty solid understanding of depth of field,
aperture/shutter relationships, etc. And even more, the
dpreview.com review gave it outstanding results in the depth of
field category and even showed examples! Mine sure didn't look
that way.

--
Amal Elaine Schmitz
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the explanation. I get it now! So what about the professional line digitals like the Canon D60? Does that issue go away or still there?

Thanks. The shots turned out very nice, but just didn't give the look I was after. Seems I can't sell my A2 just yet.

Regards,
Amal Elaine
DG said:
In digital cameras such as the G2 in which the focal multiplier
(ratio between actual lens focal length and the "effective" length
from the 35-mm world perspective) is about 5, the depth of field is
similar to a 35mm camera with the F-stop set about 4 stops higher.
Thus, even at F2.0, you are effectively looking at the DOF you'd
see at F6.0 in a 35mm. It's a relatively deep DOF, unfortunately.
The only way around it is to wait for cameras with multipliers near
1 or to throw the background out of focus using software such as
Photoshop.
Click to expand...
 
I started somewhat the same forum before coz like you I can't get the result I want, but when people responded I understand more that the dof compared to a slr is not the same and this had been talk about a lot of times already just do a search. I guess the most dof you can get is through macro mode and with a help of a macro lens not really good on people portrait .

Derick
 
Thanks Lisa, I will. I reviewed the exif data and can tell you that the shots I was examining were at f2.0 (and up to f4.0) at shutter speeds of 250 and 500. I was using the AV (Aperture Value) setting. I also tried the Portrait mode and received similar results.
Lisa Neal said:
Amal:

Could you post the photo with the exif data? Maybe we can spot
something in the data to help you.
Click to expand...
 
F2.0 is not what you want for short depth of field!

What??

You want F2.5! As in, zoomed to 21mm!

Check this out for depth of field.



Jason
dp21499 said:
I started somewhat the same forum before coz like you I can't get
the result I want, but when people responded I understand more
that the dof compared to a slr is not the same and this had been
talk about a lot of times already just do a search. I guess the
most dof you can get is through macro mode and with a help of a
macro lens not really good on people portrait .

Derick
Click to expand...
 
You could always fake it in Photoshop, PhotoImpact, or PSP.
Jason Hutchinson said:
What??

You want F2.5! As in, zoomed to 21mm!

Check this out for depth of field.



Jason
dp21499 said:
I started somewhat the same forum before coz like you I can't get
the result I want, but when people responded I understand more
that the dof compared to a slr is not the same and this had been
talk about a lot of times already just do a search. I guess the
most dof you can get is through macro mode and with a help of a
macro lens not really good on people portrait .

Derick
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hope it works when I try it, what the farthest distance I can be from the subject to still have the same effect. I don't really like to use photoshop that much just for occasional auto level adjustment for contrast.
 
That shot was taken at about 3' according to the exif headers. However, if you notice, I used the fill flash. This limited top shutter speed to 1/250th, which caused the aperature to stop down to f2.8. So, it'd be a bit more blurred if I had left the flash off. I must have thought it would take out some of the harshness though... can't remember.

Using a telephoto lens adapter will always give you better blur, if you're serious about it.

Jason
dp21499 said:
Hope it works when I try it, what the farthest distance I can be
from the subject to still have the same effect. I don't really
like to use photoshop that much just for occasional auto level
adjustment for contrast.
Click to expand...
 
The D60, unlike other digital camera using CCD technology, is using a CMOS technology and is having a sensor size much large. This translates into a focal length multiplier of about 1.6, rather than 4 to 5 for other digital cameras, so I would imagine the D60 depth of field is a lot better in that it is only half a stop more, i.e. F4 may become like F4.5.
Amal Schmitz said:
Thanks. The shots turned out very nice, but just didn't give the
look I was after. Seems I can't sell my A2 just yet.

Regards,
Amal Elaine
DG said:
In digital cameras such as the G2 in which the focal multiplier
(ratio between actual lens focal length and the "effective" length
from the 35-mm world perspective) is about 5, the depth of field is
similar to a 35mm camera with the F-stop set about 4 stops higher.
Thus, even at F2.0, you are effectively looking at the DOF you'd
see at F6.0 in a 35mm. It's a relatively deep DOF, unfortunately.
The only way around it is to wait for cameras with multipliers near
1 or to throw the background out of focus using software such as
Photoshop.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Digital cameras haveincreased depth of field. This can work for you or against you, depending on what you're trying to do. The only way to get a really blurred background is to get your foreground subject really close to the camera (in addition to using a large aperture.)

I don't think you'll find significantly different depth of field ranges on any similar cameras.
 
Two things to consider...

1. Is this the primary type of photo you intend to shoot with your camera? Experiment with other types of photos and you will find many cases where a digital camera gives you unique capabilities and opportunities.

2. Did you consider using a telephoto setting instead of wide angle? This would reduce the depth of field and you might get decent results by experimenting with focal length and distance to your subject (whatever the minimum focusing distance is for any given focal length.)

3. Perhaps an accessory lens might provide a shallower depth of field?
Amal Schmitz said:
Thanks!
gonpostal said:
Did you try using macro mode? You'd probably get pretty good
results under the conditions that you described. Most of my
close-up flower shots were taken with the camera on automatic using
macro mode. Here they are if you want to see them.
http://www.pbase.com/gonpostal/macro (Keep in mind I'm pretty new
to photography)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Your flower shots are very nice, but they were taken from about 6 inches away, a distance that would be impractcal for most portrait photography.

Even so, the level of blur you achieved in the background was only moderate, with a lot of detail still visible. I think Amal was hoping to be able to blur the background completely, something one can easily do with a 35mm camera.
gonpostal said:
Amal Schmitz said:
Well, I did some testing on my boys this evening outdoors. Frankly
I am quite disappointed in the depth of field of the G2. I had the
aperture set to f2.0 and had my kids in the foreground (approx 2 ft
from camera) and trees in the background (approx 25 ft from
camera). The intent, of course is to throw the background out of
focus. Au Contrair,,,,The trees were not out of focus very much at
all - they looked quite clear in fact.

This disappoints me - perhaps I am missing something, not sure, but
I do have a pretty solid understanding of depth of field,
aperture/shutter relationships, etc. And even more, the
dpreview.com review gave it outstanding results in the depth of
field category and even showed examples! Mine sure didn't look
that way.

--
Amal Elaine Schmitz
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Oh, one more idea...

I know this may feel like cheating, but you could also blur the background to your heart's content in Photoshop. If your subject isn't too difficult to mask, you should get excellent results with this method, with relatively little dificulty.
Walter A. said:
1. Is this the primary type of photo you intend to shoot with your
camera? Experiment with other types of photos and you will find
many cases where a digital camera gives you unique capabilities and
opportunities.

2. Did you consider using a telephoto setting instead of wide
angle? This would reduce the depth of field and you might get
decent results by experimenting with focal length and distance to
your subject (whatever the minimum focusing distance is for any
given focal length.)

3. Perhaps an accessory lens might provide a shallower depth of field?
Amal Schmitz said:
Thanks!
gonpostal said:
Did you try using macro mode? You'd probably get pretty good
results under the conditions that you described. Most of my
close-up flower shots were taken with the camera on automatic using
macro mode. Here they are if you want to see them.
http://www.pbase.com/gonpostal/macro (Keep in mind I'm pretty new
to photography)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top