[paulusje]

Interesting anecdote. So you are saying given APS-c equipment, you can't produce a decent OOF background on a full body shot? You've probably set the parameters a little too tight. Using different lenses and distances I'm sure you can come up with something you can use. You make these statements but you you don't show us the images, or show us your best image using APS-c effort to compare with your best FF image. If there's going to be a comparison, even if you're right, and the FF image is better, I still need to see the comparison shots so I can judge for myself if this difference is important to me.

I do a lot of full body shots where I want subject isolation. With the K-5 and a K 50mm ƒ1.4 @ƒ2 there is some isolation, but it's not comparable to what you get with a FF. I used the same lens on a Canon 1DsmkII and not only was the isolation better, the subject was also more detailed simply because that same 50mm lens allowed me to get closer on FF.
I'd post some examples but my 1Ds is in for a servicing

[HSV]

I shoot with my DA 55 at f2 all of the time and it does really well, nice and sharp. Anyway, the bigger question is where you position the subject in relation to the background, not just the aperture and focal length. There is a one stop difference between the two formats -- definitely visible, but usually not make or break on a specific photo either.

The biggest problem for Pentax is that Pentax has chosen to make their lenses slow. The DA 15 limited (which I love) is awfully slow at f4. Even the 40 limited is relatively slow at f2.8. This is not an inherent problem with APS-C, it is a problem with Pentax wanting to make tiny lenses.

Perhaps is Pentax trying to set themselves apart from the Canikons with the LTD's...just imagine carrying around 3 Nikkor VR primes. Thanks god that Pentax has inbody SR, saves me space and money.

With all that said, I agree that the lower FL LTD's are slow, the 15 and 21 only.

Maybe one reason people like the Canikons is because of their big lenses...it makes them look pro(like)!

[slip]

It's not just about DOF, it is how you are able to effectively use it to present the subject to the viewers.

Thanks

Randy

[Sagitta]

Granted, he's a bit on the small side, but you can still get full body portraits with subject isolation. I pulled this off with a cheap Sigma 70-300mm zoom.

Exif says it was 170mm @ f/7.1, so the lens wasn't even wide open.

The trick is just stepping back a bit with a longer lens for the shot to work.

---

Last edited by Sagitta; 11-16-2012 at 08:26 PM.

[Sagitta]

Oh, and as an example of what changing the area you're focused on can do... Pretty much the same settings for both shots if I remember right. I think I was firing in auto mode with the FA28-90 for these.

[stevebrot]

There's a reason that Adams, Cunningham, Edwards, Noskowiak, Swift, Van Dyke, and Weston called their little club "Group f/64" and it ain't (just) because they thought it was a catchy phrase.

They were all shooting large format (4x5, 8x10, and larger) at the time Group f/64 was formed. F/64 was the common shooting aperture with your view camera if you had to maintain any degree of foreground detail when doing landscape work. Even at f/64, careful attention was needed to properly control focus.

Group f/64 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Steve

[stevebrot]

Catbird in dense thicket of brambles and thorns in very low light deep brush.
2000mm (effective FL) glass at about 60 feet.
Note: that creamy green BG couldn't have been much more that 1.5-2.0 feet behind bird.
Without this narrow DOF this picture would have been a mess of conflicting features.
Full frame - by full frame I mean uncropped and not referring to format.

Dang, you do nice work, wildman...


Steve

[stevebrot]

When your normal lens is around 360mm (8x10 view camera), yeah, DOF is more of a concern and hard to get when you can't tilt the front standard due to type of shot. And, not to offend, but landscape photography, IMHO, is one of the least creative categories of photography. Landscapes are well defined and have been for a long time. So some of those famous photographers were probably not too interested in selective focus as a creative form of expression. Yes, I know I climbed out on a very long and thin limb.

...particularly considering the excellence of your landscape photography. Now that I know it is easy, my respect is tempered a bit...


Steve

[JohnBee]

You know, after Pentax hinted at looking into the FF debacle, I immediately wondered what controversies would be left to argue about on the forums. However, after reading your post, I must admit, my faith has been restored.

That being said, as I was reading through your posts, I kept waiting for the punch line revealing a satire. But now I'm thinking that you were either completely serious or... that perhaps you have yet to explore the broader horizons of photography. ie. there are many like myself who love the thought of isolating subjects in a wider FOV. Which isn't always apparent to landscape shooters, though I've definitely grown fond of the 1.4 apertures wide to normal lenses. Which is something that didn't come-up very often on a FF mount. Though in the end, I'd state that I've personally made use and enjoyed fast lenses since the beginning of my shooting days.

On a side note, people can post inspiring images from any system(really). Though it is those that mimic the human eye that stand-out the most to me:









PS. and btw, I'm still not sure if your post was intented to be taken seriously

[Venturi]

F/64 was the common shooting aperture with your view camera if you had to maintain any degree of foreground detail when doing landscape work. Even at f/64, careful attention was needed to properly control focus.

Exactly. They were hell bent on maximizing depth of field, and exploiting hyperfocal distance, in direct contrast with the fad of today minimizing DoF. I brought up Group f/64 to highlight the contrasting styles of then vs now.

[bossa]

DoF is an excuse for needing full frame as far as I can tell. My students had to shoot for shallow DoF using point and shoots. And they all got that assignment done. It isn't rocket science. And I'm sure many of them never got DSLRs and continue producing narrow DoF shots with their point and shoots. No one ever taught them they had to have a specific type of camera to do it. The laws of DoF are the same for any sensor. The wider your lens is, the closer your subject has to be and the further away you back ground has to be. Despite what many will tell you, format has nothing to do with it.

The issue that could easily be discussed, of which DoF is a part is subject isolation.

There are many ways to isolate your subject... not all involve DoF.

Colour contrast...




Placement in the image...





Sometimes just the fact that the subjects fill the frame creates separation.



Often a scene would be ruined by having narrow depth of field.





In this shot the textures create the isolation.


IN this shot it's the tonal contrast that creates isolation




If DoF is the only way your images create subject isolation, your photography is going to get old real quick. it's part of the package, and it's not necessary to even have that fast a lens to do it. You just have to know how to use the equipment you have to achieve the effect you want.

Love that last dog portrait Norm. The flames of colour in the water are very nice also.

[bossa]

You know, after Pentax hinted at looking into the FF debacle, I immediately wondered what controversies would be left to argue about on the forums. However, after reading your post, I must admit, my faith has been restored.

That being said, as I was reading through your posts, I kept waiting for the punch line revealing a satire. But now I'm thinking that you were either completely serious or... that perhaps you have yet to explore the broader horizons of photography. ie. there are many like myself who love the thought of isolating subjects in a wider FOV. Which isn't always apparent to landscape shooters, though I've definitely grown fond of the 1.4 apertures wide to normal lenses. Which is something that didn't come-up very often on a FF mount. Though in the end, I'd state that I've personally made use and enjoyed fast lenses since the beginning of my shooting days.

On a side note, people can post inspiring images from any system(really). Though it is those that mimic the human eye that stand-out the most to me:









PS. and btw, I'm still not sure if your post was intented to be taken seriously

Love your work John....

[philbaum]

One of the present day photographers i've admired for a long time, is the NY photographer Gregory Crewdson. If you look at any of his often Freudian-themed photos, i don't think you'll find any that don't have a huge DOF. And generally, the more you look at these photos, the more interesting details you find. Its almost like a Find waldo game.

Styles come and go, and the current style is definitely more shallow OOF. There's been many good examples of shallow OOF shots in this thread, such as those shown by JohnBee. I think thats fine - great work. But large dof can also build great pictures.

Landscape photos with large DOF have been mentioned, but not street photos. Some of the very best street photos, IMO, use juxtaposition to contrast a foreground subject in focus with a background subject in focus. Luminous-landscape has a wonderful article on it about composing pictures with multiple layers of interaction in them. It takes longer to find subjects like that, rather than some limited DOF subject, but its often a charming composition when one does find it. Michael Freeman in his "Eye of the Photographer" talks about such large DOF examples.

[Na Horuk]

Cool photos, everyone. See, I'm not saying that a short DoF is always bad, but that it shouldn't be something to strive for. I think all of those photos could be taken with a wider DoF and still be just as good, if not better. But a lot of people are saying that a thin DoF is a reason to buy a lens, a reason to make a new camera, a reason to use a certain lens for a certain shot, etc. When in reality other things should take precedence over DoF. (like framing, composition, selecting a shutter that will work with the FoV and content, rendering of the lens, ...)

[stevebrot]

Cool photos, everyone. See, I'm not saying that a short DoF is always bad, but that it shouldn't be something to strive for.

It is always nice to have the option and a little larger format than APS-C would fit the bill nicely for me for my style of photography.

To shift gears a little, I have been puzzled by the ongoing FF debate on the site. Get real people, it is only a larger/smaller format. From the tone of some of the messages, I think it is possible to derive a few bullet points:

Pro-FF

• Generally satisfied by APS-C format, but often tempted to jump ship
• Often have 35mm film background
• Frustrated by APS-C viewfinder image
• Frustrated by lack of quality/high value wide-angle lens options
• Frustrated by lack of quality/high value/fast normal lens options
• Satisfied by FF FOV with available longer lenses
• Less than satisfied with DOF characteristics of APS-C
• Would like better backward compatibility with legacy glass
• Many are concerned about long-exposure performance (pixel density issue)
• Many feel that FF is the only true "pro" option and feel diminished that their choice of brand, Pentax, does not have a "pro" dSLR

Anti-FF

• Very satisfied with APS-C format
• Often started photography with digital
• Very happy with the FOV provided by APS-C using available longer lenses
• Very happy with the DOF characteristics of APS-C
• Are generally satisfied with available wide-angle options
• Not particularly concerned with lack of fast glass...high ISO performance is a better solution for low-light shooting
• Many are confident that technical performance issues of APS-C are not a long-term concern
• Many feel threatened that an industry migration to FF may orphan their APS-C systems and decrease the value of their kit

I was tempted to add a few other points both lists, but decided it was better to not go there After all, there is little to be gained by religious martyrdom.


Steve