but if you shoot 50mm F10 7 feet you get a lot more in focus. Of course the bird will not fill the frame as much but it is a way to do it.
--
Well, there's the answer right there ... but it brings up a question. Why 1/125??? You got a very sharp photo, but it's amazing you were able to... Anyway, if this was ISO 200, then go up another stop ( the Rebel is still very good at 400 ) and you've got f/14. If you're really concerned about DOF, go to ISO 800 and there's f/20.
This is a very good point, but remember that as long as the eyes are in focus, most people won't notice the tail being OOF. It's a great thing to be your own hardest critic, but other people will give you a whole lot more slack when they judge your work.
I've never used a DOF calculator. I don't really believe in them. Personally, I think a person should watch the relationships between distance and FL, aperture, and ISO, then put these to use and get what they get. You know how stopping down buys more DOF and how zooming in gives you less, and knowing exactly what the numbers are doesn't affect how good this photo is by any means!!
Right; it's not the fact that the lens is MF. You can set any lens to MF. It's the way the lens can bend itself and play with the plane of focus.
Actually, it's 24 mm ( not 28 ), 45, and 90. The longer two are f/2.8 lenses, while the wide is an f/3.5. The 90/2.8 is said to be among the sharpest lenses Canon makes ... which is kind of a broad category.
This would be an optical crop, but if you put the same crop into the viewfinder - ie if you composed your shot around this crop - you would indeed have wider DOF for any composition/aperture combination.
Or without certain "flaws," like veilling, that are only present in a small handful of lenses: 50/1.0L, 50/1.4, 85/1.2L, and maybe the 135/2L.
I like the OOF background here, and I love the way this lens deals with OOF highlights. This is why it's at the top of my list. Although in this particular example, I have to ask about the focus. The 80 in the bag, toward the bottom-right corner, looks perfectly crisp, while the subject himself looks a little soft already.
but of course i want the bird to fill the frame.but if you shoot 50mm F10 7 feet you get a lot more in focus. Of
course the bird will not fill the frame as much but it is a way to
do it.
Just going from 100mm to 50mm at 10 feet can makes a drastic
difference for F4 lets say.
--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel
the subject was moving
The less of the frame the bird fills ( which translates to: the smaller the image of the bird that your lens projects onto your CMOS chip ), the wider the DOF you'll have. Then you pull the shot up in Photoshop, and crop so the bird once again fills the frame; the frame just has less pixels making it up. Which means you've captured less detail on the bird ( and more detail on the surroundings; useless to your photo ), but with a wider DOF.
I shot in aperture priority and this is the shutter speed the camera gave me at f/10 and iso200, I of course shot this on a tripod and the bird was kind enough not to move very much, i shot about 8 pics of the same bird at the same time and all but 2 were sharp. I try not to ask the camera why it does what it does because it tends to do it very well. The histogram on this shot was slightly to the left, i ended up adjusting levels by pulling the right slider in and the left slider in, but twice as much on the right slider, i believe they are called the black and white points.
--
I noticed right away that with my nikon cp990 and pentax spotting scope i could shoot at much slower shutter speeds and still get a sharp bird even if the bird moved some, not so with the rebel and my 400mm lens, i need faster shutter speeds. Might have something to do with the sensor size or i might just be imagining things like you.
--I want LESS DOF, or at least the option to have it, you can
always stop a lens down more and gain DOF, you do need flash or
ISO increase of course.
What you cant do is make a lens have less DOF to create those great
looking surreal images
heres a shot from the 85 1.2L wide open in my local shop
without f1.2 that should would of been pretty boring
--
http://www.pbase.com/bigbad
As Daniella points out, this basically amounts to cropping the image, which you're of course free to do. But this has the opposite effect: Any print/enlargement will have to use a greater magnification, which would increase the size of the circle of confusion, actually yielding less DOF.
