Is shallow DOF overrated?

[Unda Covalava]

Very nice PP work on that photo. I see what you mean, and agree that the first shot was ruined by the passing vehicle.

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.'

 

[MrTokyo]

It's ber over-rated.

I also think that volume in music is a waste of time. I mean just play all instruments at the same level and all the time. That's all we need.



--
keith

http://www.waddo.net

 

[paulbod2]

And picture in photography is useless, they are all the same.

 

[thw]

releases a digicam with the noise performance of the latest Fuji (low noise) and the focusing capabilities of the Sony F828/V3, it may be quite a killer.

 

[Raegoul]

the reason i switched to a DSLR was cuz i was trying to take a slow shutter speed pic in the middle of the day to get a blur effect and i couldnt do it cuz i couldnt get a small enough apperture...

if the only reason your upgrading is to obtain shallow DOF and not the extra quality and numerous other advantages, then id agree that it is too much hassle.

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.

--
http://www.raegoul.org

 

[nickoly]

the reason i switched to a DSLR was cuz i was trying to take a slow> shutter speed pic in the middle of the day to get a blur effect and> i couldnt do it cuz i couldnt get a small enough apperture...

A decent ND filter would have done that for you. (Come to think of it, it still will)

 

[MagicAngel]

the reason i switched to a DSLR was cuz i was trying to take a slow
shutter speed pic in the middle of the day to get a blur effect and
i couldnt do it cuz i couldnt get a small enough apperture...

Wow, I gave away a P&S camera that was several years old that could do that. Most P&S camera will, if you know how to work them.

 

[rgmoore]

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.

Interchangeable lenses are worth something, too. Somebody else on this thread commented that they disliked the hassle of changing lenses, but I couldn't disagree more. I think that the ability to change to a lens that's specifically suited for the kind of photography that I want to do is wonderful, and a big part of the reason I got a DSLR.

--
http://www.pbase.com/rgmoore

 

[Raegoul]

obviously theres other benefits to DSLRs that i appreciated but that was just the final straw... sorry that i didnt explain myself as much as you needed me to.

id rather not pay an arm and a leg for insanely overpriced accessories for a point and shoot camera when in the end its gonna still be a point and shoot camera.... atleast with my slr lenses and accessories i have a huge selection of canon camera bodies to select from... film and digital... if i wasted my money on accessories for my v1 i could upgrade to the v3?!?!

you people can foolishly hold filters infront of your lenses and turn your point and shoots into frankenstein freaks of nature and all the luck to you. but there comes a point in time where if your that advanced, you shouldnt waste your time with p&s. atleast i figured it out before i wasted any more money. I'll try out that filter conveniently screwed to the front of my lens! thanks for the tip!

again the point of my initial post is shallow depth of field isnt worth buying way more expensive dslr equipment... enuff said

A decent ND filter would have done that for you. (Come to think of
it, it still will)

Wow, I gave away a P&S camera that was several years old that could
do that. Most P&S camera will, if you know how to work them.

 

[Raegoul]

Wow, I gave away a P&S camera that was several years old that could
do that. Most P&S camera will, if you know how to work them.

so explain to me how to do it oh wise one....i want to learn from the vast knowledge you have!

a stock sony v1... taking a picture of water flowing... wanting extremely slow shutter speed for the desired foamy water effect.... in the middle of a bright day with my apperture as small as it could go (8) at the lowest iso i could do 100... and i still wasnt achieving the foam effect that i wanted. what other options did i have?

keep in mind i refuse to buy lame add ons for a point and shoot or be a slave to the camera by having to hold sunglasses or filters infront of the lens...

i hope to learn from the best!

--
http://www.raegoul.org

 

[nickoly]

It has just occurred to me that the P&S you allude to may not have a filter thread. Indeed it may also have no aperture control. In that event, my apologies and I agree with you in that there is little point in trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear - even though I have resorted to a few desperate measures myself.

If your P&S does have these assets then an ND64 will go a long way to help even though the minimum aperture is, say, f8 - the curse of the digicams.

A typical sunny environment, say Weston 13, gives EV14 at 80ASA, say 1/250 @ f8, OK? An ND64 reduces it to EV8, being 1/4 @ f8 which should be usefully slow. Your DSLR should be good for another couple of stops, hence 1 sec @ f16, which should be good for just about anything, except the rather dry waterfalls like what we have round here.

 

[Raegoul]

my p&s had all the manual features but i had it as small as i could on that cam but i was going for 5 second shutter speeds.

at that point i had no clue about filters and stuff so i figured it was the end of the world hehe... but im glad i switched to dslr when i did cuz the benefits are tenfold.....easily installing filters on the end of the lens being one of them.

thanks for the education in ND filters... ill have to give it a try on my slr....

 

[paulrubin]

Sometimes size does matter. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes convenience matters. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes wide angle or long zoom matters. Sometimes it doesn't. Ditto noise, multiple frames per second, video, water resistance, etc. matter. Sometimes they don't. Resolve the problem but having a decent but not overpriced P&S digital, a small one at that AND a DSLR. You're only talking about the price of one mediocre lens anyway so if you're seriously considering a DSLR and its associated costs, what's one lens more or less. Hell, a compact digital P&S is about the same size as a charger anyway.
--
http://rubin.smugmug.com

 

[a t o m i c]

You should have a look at the E-300 with 14-54/2.8-3.5, it may suit your needs well.

--
Adrian

'I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have
been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and

then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great
ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.' - Sir Isaac Newton