Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-10-2018, 02:44 PM - 3 Likes   #16
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,880
Shot on the street in Istanbul using a K3 and a 16-85mm set at 43mm and f5.6.

No flash. All natural lighting. Shot one handed with an ice cream cone in the other.


Don't be fooled into thinking you 'have to have' an f1.2 lens in order to get bokeh. Bokeh and depth of field are not the same thing.





08-10-2018, 03:08 PM   #17
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,219
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
. DOF is a complex topic and difficult to discuss without either math or comparison images. I have comparison images somewhere that I did in about 2009 for DOF of equivalent crops at different focal lengths that illustrate nicely.
Plenty of images here, Steve:




08-10-2018, 03:37 PM - 1 Like   #18
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,003
Seriously, how shallow do you want the focal plane? The OP's DA70/2.4 and M85/2.0 should do the job nicely.

Attention to subject and background distance (and nailing focus) are the most important things. Nice light helps too.

DA70 on crop. Quick snaps while my daughter was preparing for her wedding last April.



08-10-2018, 03:47 PM - 1 Like   #19
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Durham, England
Posts: 9,812
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
As I noted above and other comments have called out, there is nothing magic or even particularly useful about limited DOF. In my opinion, it is a pain.
Very shallow depth-of-field can be a valid creative tool, no doubt about it - but it's of surprisingly limited utility beyond experimental play, and showing others on forums like these just how shallow it can be

In a separate thread earlier today I mentioned that I'd recently reviewed my image library to do some re-organising and clean-up. In doing so, I noticed that a large proportion (the majority, actually) of my photos taken at maximum aperture were nothing more than test shots where I was playing around with a lens to see how well it performed wide open, and getting a feel for the depth of field at various distances. My "serious" photos are mostly shot at narrower apertures, in the f/4 - f/11 range (depending on a number of factors)...

08-10-2018, 07:50 PM   #20
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 30,461
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Yep...though I don't believe that most of the examples show what he is saying they show.* As I mentioned before, it is a complex topic. Move the camera and the magnification changes along with the perspective (relative distance to subject vs. background) showing similar background blur.** Not moving the camera and using a crop for comparison results in the same perspective as well as the same magnification ==> same DOF.***

I truly don't have an ax to grind here, but generally suggest that one try it out for themselves if they have access to a significantly larger format camera (say 6x7cm or 4x5) and must know for certain how DOF presents for different frame size. The only reason I weighed in on this discussion was to lend credence to the idea that thin DOF creates more problems on the creative end than it solves and that there are other ways to accomplish subject isolation. If I could count the number of killer shots that looked great on the rear LCD only to be culled on first pass due to inadequate DOF...


Steve


* That sounds big-headed, but while I respect Lee Morris, Tony Northrup, and other popular knowledge sources on the Web, half-baked explanations and leaps of logic are quite common despite being stated in a compelling manner.

** As noted in comments above, the amount of blur is not a measure of DOF.

*** In case it is not obvious, the Nikon view was severely cropped to allow a match to the Lumix.
08-10-2018, 07:54 PM   #21
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 30,461
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Very shallow depth-of-field can be a valid creative tool, no doubt about it - but it's of surprisingly limited utility beyond experimental play, and showing others on forums like these just how shallow it can be
Dang that is well put.


Steve
08-10-2018, 08:38 PM   #22
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,219
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
. The only reason I weighed in on this discussion was to lend credence to the idea that thin DOF creates more problems on the creative end than it solves
It certainly can, although I shoot quite a bit at wide apertures.

To me, and you may share the same view, there is a real problem with just pointing a fast lens at a flower and shooting at f1.2 instead of f11.

The resulting image can be neither fish nor fowl.

There is often too much of the flower for the picture to be just abstract bokeh, and not enough of the flower is in focus to do it justice as a beautiful 3D object.

Last edited by clackers; 08-10-2018 at 09:03 PM.
08-11-2018, 02:47 AM - 1 Like   #23
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Durham, England
Posts: 9,812
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
To me, and you may share the same view, there is a real problem with just pointing a fast lens at a flower and shooting at f1.2 instead of f11.
Absolutely.

I think the key thing with aperture choice / depth-of-field - as with any other creative aspect of a shot - is that it should be deliberate and have a clear purpose.

For example, when photographing a beautiful flower, if the main subject is actually the stamens, it might be appropriate to have just that part in focus, with the petals drifting gently out of focus. But if the subject is the entire flower, you probably want most (perhaps all) of it in focus.

It sounds so obvious, but we see many shots where someone shoots at f/1.2 or 1.4 just because they can, when f/2.8 or f/4 would have isolated the subject sufficiently and kept the important bits in focus...

08-11-2018, 03:01 AM   #24
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
ffking's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Poole
Posts: 3,713
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
It sounds so obvious, but we see many shots where someone shoots at f/1.2 or 1.4 just because they can, when f/2.8 or f/4 would have isolated the subject sufficiently and kept the important bits in focus...
Very true, but I think that it partly depends on the process of taking the picture, Mike - I you set out in a deliberate way to produce a specific result (which we arguably should be doing all the time as serious photographers ), you're absolutely right, but sometime we just fall in love with what we see through the viewfinder, and that is, of course, wide open aperture.

Incidentally, I've been meaning to ask - I've never used a modern EVF in a MILC, and I was wondering if the viewfinder view is stopped down or wide open?
08-11-2018, 03:33 AM   #25
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Durham, England
Posts: 9,812
QuoteOriginally posted by ffking Quote
Very true, but I think that it partly depends on the process of taking the picture, Mike - I you set out in a deliberate way to produce a specific result (which we arguably should be doing all the time as serious photographers ), you're absolutely right, but sometime we just fall in love with what we see through the viewfinder, and that is, of course, wide open aperture.
Sure. And to be clear, I don't think there's anything wrong with shooting wide open if it produces the result we want creatively, or even if it just puts a big smile on our face. So long as we're clear on our reasons for shooting at a ridiculously-fast aperture, it's all good

EDIT: I've a few fast-aperture lenses myself, and I'm as "guilty" as the next man for shooting them wide open just because I get a kick out of it But as I mentioned in an earlier post, I have surprisingly few "serious" photos taken at the widest settings...

QuoteOriginally posted by ffking Quote
Incidentally, I've been meaning to ask - I've never used a modern EVF in a MILC, and I was wondering if the viewfinder view is stopped down or wide open?
I can only speak about my Hasselblad HV (Sony SLT-A99) and Sony A7 MkII. On both, the lens diaphragm stays wide open during composition and focusing. With the HV, there's a dedicated (though customisable) shot preview button, which stops the lens down and uses the exposure settings to display the image as it will be recorded. The key benefit here is that you see both the resulting depth of field and exposure - and it's a live image. The A7 MkII has no dedicated preview button, so you assign it to one of the custom buttons. The functionality, though, is exactly the same.

Last edited by BigMackCam; 08-11-2018 at 03:40 AM.
08-11-2018, 03:47 AM - 1 Like   #26
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
ffking's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Poole
Posts: 3,713
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
I can only speak about my Hasselblad HV (Sony SLT-A99) and Sony A7 MkII. On both, the lens diaphragm stays wide open during composition and focusing. With the HV, there's a dedicated (though customisable) shot preview button, which stops the lens down and uses the exposure settings to display the image as it will be recorded. The key benefit here is that you see both the resulting depth of field and exposure - and it's a live image. The A7 MkII has no dedicated preview button, so you assign it to one of the custom buttons. The functionality, though, is exactly the same.
Thanks, Mike - other than increasing the sum of my knowledge, one of the reasons I was asking is in relation to the much vaunted WYSIWYG of EVFs - so unless you're set to maximum aperture or habitually use the dof, WYG still isn't quite WYS.
08-11-2018, 04:39 AM   #27
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Durham, England
Posts: 9,812
QuoteOriginally posted by ffking Quote
Thanks, Mike - other than increasing the sum of my knowledge, one of the reasons I was asking is in relation to the much vaunted WYSIWYG of EVFs - so unless you're set to maximum aperture or habitually use the dof, WYG still isn't quite WYS.
Indeed. I guess they keep the lens open to ensure maximum light and accuracy when focusing.

One nice feature is that you can set the EVF (and main screen) view to show the image exposed as a result of your current settings, or automatically brightened to a suitable level. The former adds to the WYSIWYG claims, and is very useful. The latter is also useful, especially if you're shooting in lower light.

So it's really only depth-of-field that isn't shown live and actually requires a press of the preview button. But bear in mind, while that button is pressed, the view remains live, so you can recompose if required. Plus, the preview is far more useful IMHO than the equivalent function on a DSLR, as you see exactly how the image will look when you take the shot... no darkening of the viewfinder

I primarily shoot manual diaphragm lenses on my A7 MkII, and with the EVF settings I use I do in fact have WYSIWYG (since the camera isn't controlling the aperture).
08-11-2018, 07:56 AM   #28
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,341
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
It's a myth, Wasp.

Standing closer to the subject reduces DoF, sensor size doesn't.

No, Larger Sensors Do Not Produce Shallower Depth of Field | Fstoppers
This is an odd point of view. Yes, it is standing closer to the subject, but assuming you want the same framing and are using the same focal length, you can stand closer to the subject with a larger sensor than with a smaller one.

That said, there is no problem shooting with APS-C and having shallow depth of field portraits. I do it all of the time. 55mm at f2 or the FA 77 at f2.8 work like a dream in those sorts of situations.
08-11-2018, 11:12 AM - 2 Likes   #29
Veteran Member
Wasp's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Pretoria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 529
Oh dear. I really put my foot into it. I agree that the sensor by itself does nothing to the depth of field. The real explanation lies in the fact that the lens produces a larger image circle, but it all very scientific and mathematical. I was trying to say that a camera with a larger sensor and a lens to match will have less DOF than than the equivalent lens on a camera with a smaller sensor. Should have used different words. My bad.

Edit: one of the terms used in DOF calculation is "circle of confusion." Now I know why they chose that name...

Last edited by Wasp; 08-11-2018 at 11:27 AM.
08-11-2018, 12:12 PM   #30
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,085
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Wasp Quote
one of the terms used in DOF calculation is "circle of confusion." Now I know why they chose that name...
lol

what i understood now, i think, is that when using a ff sensor instead of apsc, one will crop with his feet to get the same framing.
It allows to get closer to the subject creating more background & possibly foreground blur. It's all about relative distance? at least, for the most part..

---------- Post added 08-11-18 at 09:31 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by caliscouser Quote
To the OP, I think the DA* 55 on crop would do what you want for the most part.
and now i wonder how the da55 compares to an 85 1.4, both on apsc.

I'd think about the same as the higher compression of the 85 is offset by the fact that the distance between lens-subject is less with the da55 given the same framing? Maybe the 55 might give an advantage indoors e.g.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
500px, af, aperture, apsc, blemishes, camera, crop, da55, da70, days, distance, dslr, ff, flash, fls, length, lens, light, photo, photography, portrait, post, post process
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature What would a wood rat do if a wood rat would rat on you? sealonsf Post Your Photos! 6 08-28-2018 01:40 PM
Misc 100mm f/2.8 Macro WR Bokeh Bokeh Bokeh! iocchelli Post Your Photos! 3 03-20-2011 02:22 AM
How do you nail the focus shooting portraits with a shallow DOF? JamieP Photographic Technique 40 11-01-2009 06:58 AM
Shallow DOF @ 1.4 is nice when you get it right joelovotti Post Your Photos! 5 10-30-2008 12:04 PM
Very shallow dof portrait emilf Post Your Photos! 3 10-20-2008 09:39 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:48 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top