True, it's about distance from the subject, etc. but in practical terms, this is driven by sensor size. So, sensor size is the easier explanation for newbies.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Would the S90 be able to isolate subjects at F2?
- Thread starter tc333
- Start date
Ahhh...ignore my comment above. Didn't explain it well, and not time to re-do. Wish there was a comment delete!
Like others have said, don't expect a shallow DOF, unless you are zoomed in, close to the subject, and perhaps even in macro mode.
Here are a few examples with P&S cameras, but for typical portrait type shots, as I said above, prepare to use full zoom, be close to the subject, and have a background that's far away.
These are both shot with a Canon G3, which also had an f/2 lens:
These 2 are shot with a little Canon S400 @ f/2.8:
--
CHIA
http://www.pbase.com/chia/
Here are a few examples with P&S cameras, but for typical portrait type shots, as I said above, prepare to use full zoom, be close to the subject, and have a background that's far away.
These are both shot with a Canon G3, which also had an f/2 lens:
These 2 are shot with a little Canon S400 @ f/2.8:
--
CHIA
http://www.pbase.com/chia/
antoineb
Veteran Member
I'm not going to bore you with technical details, or do any math.
But in my experience of similar cameras, I've found that only those that have a significant zoom (typically, allowing to go over 250 or even 300m equiv) will allow decent background blurring.
However the S90 has a more modest zoom so I doubt that you'll be able to get wonderful results. You might get some result - I just wouldn't buy it for that purpose.
Examples:
But in my experience of similar cameras, I've found that only those that have a significant zoom (typically, allowing to go over 250 or even 300m equiv) will allow decent background blurring.
However the S90 has a more modest zoom so I doubt that you'll be able to get wonderful results. You might get some result - I just wouldn't buy it for that purpose.
Examples:
- blurred background (slightly smaller chip) at 244mm equiv and standing fairly close maybe 10ft away)
- not really blurred background despite 206mm equiv and fairly close
- blurred background using 504mm equiv
- blurred background at 309mm equiv
I think you will be able to achieve a similar result only in particular conditions (max zoom, min distance from subject , maybe in macro mode, and very distant background). It is not a case that the background, in that picture, is very far, and that the subject is small so you can be very close.Sample photo:
I have an S80 and it is very difficult to blur the background, the S90 will be better, but it will not do impossible things...
Nevertheless, the other samples on the japanese site are impressive... the output looks really clean and sharp for a compact!
Julian Macoveanu
Active member
Yepp, the DOF decreases quadratically with increased focal length so from 30.5 to 88 it's a huge difference.
I wish DOF was the only difference in these pics, but there are many others.
Thanks for the pics, they basically confirm that not even the better compacts can come close to DSLR IQ
I wish DOF was the only difference in these pics, but there are many others.
Thanks for the pics, they basically confirm that not even the better compacts can come close to DSLR IQ
for example, I tried the DOF calculator and, for f/2, 6mm (which is 28mm on the S90) and 1/1,8' sensor, the DOF is 0,8 m when the subject is at 1m, but it quickly raises to more than 7m when the subject is at 2m... this means that you have to be very close to the subjet to blur the background.
R
Ron Parr
Guest
Many of the SD series have smaller sensors than what the S90 has, so at the same f/stop, distance to subject and field of view, the S90 will have shallower DOF. I do agree, however, that it still won't be close to what you can achieve with an SLR.
--
Ron Parr
Digital Photography FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
R
Ron Parr
Guest
The issue is that people aren't being precise about what they're saying and that this lack of precision can lead to even greater confusion.
Here's an example: Suppose somebody read the statement that deeper DOF comes from the smaller sensor and took the statement at face value, without an understanding that the deeper DOF is actually driven by the change in optics required to achieve the same composition with both cameras. This person might then conclude that he could get deeper DOF in his images by cropping them more tightly and enlarging more to compensate - since cropping is the same as using a smaller sensor. Unfortunately, the results would be the exact opposite of his expectations. Cropping would decrease DOF.
--
Ron Parr
Digital Photography FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
BigMike1
Senior Member
If someone made an f/0.5 lens for a compact camera, then we might see some shallow DOF, but since all the lenses seem to be more in the f/2.8+ range (including the S90 after you zoom in a bit), yes, the small sensor size results in wider DOF.
Does anyone know if f/0.5 lenses are possible on 1/1.7" sensors?
--
Big Mike
http://www.bigmikephotoblog.com
Does anyone know if f/0.5 lenses are possible on 1/1.7" sensors?
--
Big Mike
http://www.bigmikephotoblog.com
f0.5 is the theoretical limit for refractive lenses, so the answer is "no" on any sensor size.
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
It's hard to understand why somebody wants to make gold from sh*t. It's a lost cause anyway, isolating a subject with a compact camera.
As it was said you have to be zoomed to the max to obtain a so-and-so isolation...and there the camera has lousy performance anyway, the aperture falls, the image is soft, no detail whatsoever...it's like arguing with someone that says that a cellphone can take good pictures...
Pushing the Canon a710
http://floppyrom.deviantart.com/gallery/
As it was said you have to be zoomed to the max to obtain a so-and-so isolation...and there the camera has lousy performance anyway, the aperture falls, the image is soft, no detail whatsoever...it's like arguing with someone that says that a cellphone can take good pictures...
--
Pushing the Canon a710
http://floppyrom.deviantart.com/gallery/
FlyPenFly
Senior Member
LX3 at f2.8, ISO 80, no zoom
It appears lots of DOF here.
It appears lots of DOF here.
Based on the results from a limited Google search, f/0.7 appears to be technically (but not necessarily economically) feasible for a glass lens that interfaces to air. Note that f/0.7 is about 3 f-stops faster than f/2. For all practical purposes, a digital viewfinder cam with an f/1lens should be good enough, though such a beast is more likely to be based on an APS-C or large size sensor.
Part of the problem is that with small sensors, the actual focal length of the sensor is quite small which may be difficult to manufacture at the necessary precision. If the goal is a fixed focal length digicam, one interesting option may be to build a sensor with a curved surface by "depositing" or "printing" the sensor electronics on the outside surface of a glass element.
yup...the DOF is big...the idea is to have it small
Pushing the Canon a710
http://floppyrom.deviantart.com/gallery/
--LX3 at f2.8, ISO 80, no zoom
It appears lots of DOF here.
Pushing the Canon a710
http://floppyrom.deviantart.com/gallery/
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum