Is shallow DOF overrated?

[Unda Covalava]

Is that enough of a reason to spend the big bucks on a DSLR?

If one is satisfied with 8x10" prints, rarely prints anything larger, rarely prints anything actually, is shallow DOF reason enough to upgrade? Switching lenses and cleaning sensors seem like a burden. More than likely it will be Canon XT + Sigma 18-200 with no lens switching. Any thoughts appreciated.

 

[Christopher Crawford]

Is that enough of a reason to spend the big bucks on a DSLR?

If one is satisfied with 8x10" prints, rarely prints anything
larger, rarely prints anything actually, is shallow DOF reason
enough to upgrade? Switching lenses and cleaning sensors seem like
a burden. More than likely it will be Canon XT + Sigma 18-200 with
no lens switching. Any thoughts appreciated.

Depends on what you shoot. For landscapes, architecture, flowers, etc. you usually want a lot of depth of field but for portraits the bility to blur out the background totally is absolutely essential and is worth the price of a D-SLR.
--
Chris Crawford
http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com

 

[roughtrade]

Besides the versatility of the DSLR, framerate, etc, - noise is my main objection to the current crop of fixed lens cameraes.

I have no use for cameraes that only delivers remotely acceptable quality at ISO 50, but I must confess I found the apparent huge progress in S/N of the new Fuji sensor interesting.

Put that technology in a FZ20 style cam with RAW and a few other improvement and we would have a very pleasing proposal.

 

[Barrie Davis]

Is that enough of a reason to spend the big bucks on a DSLR?

Yes -- for many people it is. If you happen to like big depth of field you can save LOTS of money by purchasing a good EVF type prosumer.

If one is satisfied with 8x10" prints, rarely prints anything
larger, rarely prints anything actually, is shallow DOF reason
enough to upgrade?

Depends on what you like to shoot. Mostly it is casual portraits that demand shallow DoF, it being used to clean up the background by fuzzing it up.

You can still do portraits, of course, even with deep DoF. It is simply a matter of doing what professional shooters do for formal portraits. They choose backgrounds that are NOT cluttered and confusing, even if they are rendered sharply. That's easy in the studio, where the background is completely your choice, and can be as plain as you like -- but not so simple otherwise.

Neither is fancy post processing (cut out the subject and then defocus the background) a viable alternative. Results with "lens blurring" in Photoshop look very convincing, but it takes F--O--R--0--E--V--E---R!

Switching lenses and cleaning sensors seem like
a burden.

It is, especially switching lenses.

It is quite a revelation to me realising just how restricting it was, now that I don't have to do it at all -- (most of my subjects need sharp focus throughout).

More than likely it will be Canon XT + Sigma 18-200 with
no lens switching. Any thoughts appreciated.

That'll be quite a big beast to carry around all the time, also somewhat compromised on maximum aperture.

Yeah --- kit that is encumbering is not so often used, although it is part of the price if you have professional intents.....

Regards,
Baz

 

[nickoly]

Is that enough of a reason to spend the big bucks on a DSLR?> > If one is satisfied with 8x10" prints, rarely prints anything> larger, rarely prints anything actually, is shallow DOF reason> enough to upgrade?

Upgrade to what?

It all depends on personal preference in what and how you shoot. I would find the shallow DoF more a liability than an asset. It would appear that you are satisfied with what you have and thus there is no reason to upgrade.

If shallow DoF is what you want, it is time to move. I'm sure you could cook up some background blur in your post processing but I would suggest this is one of those things that is better gotten right in the first place.

More particularly, why a DSLR anyway? If you really are serious about flattening your DoF, it's time to get a film camera.

A DSLR has more DoF than that 35mm camera that is lying in your bottom drawer and nobody has claimed 35mm cameras are famous for shallow DoF. Indeed, when they were invented, they were promoted for exactly the opposite quality.

 

[thw]

the XT. Seems you are still considering. There are 2 reasons for me to get a DSLR: speed and usable high-end ISO. Couple that with the compressed RAW in XT/NikonD70 and I believe that's all I want.

 

[RDKirk]

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

 

[Mrfixitx]

It really depends on where you want to take your pictures at and get the blurred background.

If for example you want to take pictures at the local soccer game, or other sporting events a blurred background is great for bringing attention to the subjects.

While with studio style work a blured background is not an issue because a blank wall etc.. does not detract not everyone shoots only in studios. I like the ablity to be able to take a picture out on the street and blur the background. I am still learning DOF having only recently bought a DSLR but I can say for sure that having the option of a shallow DOF can be a major benifit once you learn how to use it.

While DLSR's are larger than say a small point and shoot when you compare them to a pro1, Nikon 8800, FZ20 etc... they are not that much bigger its not like either one are going to just slip into a pocket.

Of course switching lenses can be a pain but you can always just get a good all around lense and a couple for specific situations. Personally for me its worth price to have that level of versatility. With a P&S camera's your stuck with one lense with a specific zoom range, and while some do offer teleconverters to help with telephoto or wide angle they are still not as good as a dedicated lense. Usually they result in noticably softer images and heck with a teleconverter on there's no chance of pocketing your P&S anymore. There is also a limit to what teleconverts can do.

It is true that on cheap SLR lenses you loose some of your aperature range that you have with P&S, for example the Rebel XT kit lense has a maxium aperature of 3.5, vs 2.8-3.0 that seems to be the average for most P&S cameras. Of course you can spend more money and get a nice lense that 2.8 but it costs more. However with a DSLR you can just bump the ISO up and at ISO 400 on DSLR you have about as much noise as most P&S camera's at ISO 100.

I will agree if someone comes out with a 28-300mm zoom Prosumer camera that can do ISO 1600, and have the quick response time DSLR's have I will be very tempted by it. If it has a slow shot to shot time like most P&S's have it will not be nearly as attractive to me personally.

One other note and some prosumers are offering this already is the RAW/DNG format. I am sure you have heard the hype about this but let me say for only having been using it about a week I love it. The ability to correct WB errors, underexposed images, color tint etc.. its fantastic and so much easier than with JPG's. I had two picutres I intentionally exposed incorrectly so they both had a bright purple tint. The RAW file I was able to fix the color in about 10 seconds. The JPG took me much longer and still did not look nearly as good as the corrected RAW.

Mr.Fixit

 

[paulbod2]

Main reasons to buy a DSLR are :

more control of framing - focusing; EVF is still well behind SLR in this
speed of operation; no shutter delay + faster AF

Because DoF is function of focal lenght, aperture, distance and CoC, it is not said that with an FZ20 it is not possible to obtain very nice results... It is my feeling and experience that CoC should be equalled to photosite size.

http://www.dof.pcraft.com/dof.cgi

But having used an FZ20, with all its good properties, I find the E-1 E-300 E-10 much faster to operate, particularly against moving subjects, and a world apart in framing.

Dust is not a problem in Olympus when changing lenses, and the new kit E-300 + 2 lenses is abt 750 usd...

 

[Franka T.L.]

If that's your concern over the matter, DON"T get a DSLR, but for real, you do not go get a DSLR simply because you get shallow DOF, its just one area its doing better than DC due to the format, but its not and should not be the prime reason for your decision unless Shallow DOF is crucial to your need ...

--
Franka

 

[TrapperJohn]

I wouldn't say it's overrated - great for portraits. No, it's not the only reason to buy a DSLR.

Lots of reasons - for me it was the lens selection, and the in camera options such as manual control, bracketing, and better white balance control.

Personally, I think high ISO is overrated - you get the shot, but the color is washed out, and detail is missing.

 

[Bruce MacNeil]

Nope.

http://www.brucemacneil.com

I wouldn't say it's overrated - great for portraits. No, it's not
the only reason to buy a DSLR.

Lots of reasons - for me it was the lens selection, and the in
camera options such as manual control, bracketing, and better white
balance control.

Personally, I think high ISO is overrated - you get the shot, but
the color is washed out, and detail is missing.

 

[thw]

I wouldn't say it's overrated - great for portraits. No, it's not
the only reason to buy a DSLR.

True enough.

Lots of reasons - for me it was the lens selection

Yes.

camera options such as manual control, bracketing, and better white
balance control.

Disagree. Look at a high end digicam like the Oly 8080. You too have excellent manual control bracketing and white balance control. In fact the WB control on the 8080 is better than certain DSLRs e.g. Pentax DS, Canon 350XT.

Personally, I think high ISO is overrated - you get the shot, but
the color is washed out, and detail is missing.

Try shooting ISO 400 on a digicam and compare that against ISO 400 on the Canon 350XT. Then tell me if you still think it's over-rated.

--
-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com

 

[Unda Covalava]

Lots of very insightful comments, and I learned something from each of them.

 

[Roger Krueger]

Of course switching lenses can be a pain

A tiny pain--it takes what, 10 seconds? I do it a half-dozen times a night at punk shows, and that's with people bouncing off me as I do it.

I will agree if someone comes out with a 28-300mm zoom Prosumer
camera that can do ISO 1600, and have the quick response time
DSLR's have I will be very tempted by it.

Even on the (unlikely IMHO) chance that someone puts a DSLR quality-sensor in a PS, that long a zoom is going to be very lucky to be a 2.8, more likely a 3.5 or 4.0. It'd have to be ISO 12,800 to match the light-gathering ability of a DSLR with a 50/1.4.

Roger Krueger
http://www.punktures.com

 

[roughtrade]

"Overrated"?
It's the single most important difference between a DSLR and a prosumer.

The punisment of being confined to shoot at ISO 5o or accepting intolerable noise levels is hardly "overated"!

 

[Gary Grundy]

I don't see why you can't get a reasonable dof from a prosummer camera. I'm more worried about sharpness. I can Photoshop the blur.
--
Regards
Gary

 

[RDKirk]

I think it's a fad among people coming in from P&S cameras. It's one of those things that has always been a brush on the palette of photographers, but like any brush, it gets worn if used too often. No good painter uses only one brush.

It's better to ALSO learn how to make a sharp background work for you. Learn to relate the subject to the environment. Learn to watch the background for negative factors.

Most of my portrait clients prefer to be completely in focus.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

 

[WChu]

Yes, I am not an artist and like to have everything very much in focus. Even blurry corners bother me, not to mention blurry background

 

[krusadr]

I use it extensively in my shooting. However I have to admit that if you know your way around photoshop you can fake it.

Here's a thread where the photographer thought his (very nice) shot with his new 100-400 f4.5-5.6 was ruined because of a car passing by in the background and due to the lack of a shallow DOF caused by the slow lens the car distracts from the subject (a bird in flight).

I did a little PP on it and reduced the DOF of the shot to make it look closer to a shot at f2.8.

Hey presto a 100-400mm f2.8 !!!! Ok it's not ideal but if you learn the technique it can be done.

Heres the "before and after" actually "after and before" shots...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=13502646

Is that enough of a reason to spend the big bucks on a DSLR?

If one is satisfied with 8x10" prints, rarely prints anything
larger, rarely prints anything actually, is shallow DOF reason
enough to upgrade? Switching lenses and cleaning sensors seem like
a burden. More than likely it will be Canon XT + Sigma 18-200 with
no lens switching. Any thoughts appreciated.

--

'Silence! What is all this insolence? You will find yourself in gladiator school vewy quickly with wotten behaviour like that.'