[Rondec]

Funny, I can often get more OOF with the Q and the 8.5mm F1.9 than the V1 with either the 10mm F2.8 prime or the 10-30mm zoom due to issues of focal length, minimum focusing distance, and aperture. OOF with the V1 is possible, but you've got to work those variables carefully:







I'm curious about the new Nikkor 18.5mm F1.8 (50mm EQ) for the DOF/OOF possibilities.

Sure. Just when I picture sports shooting I guess I picture the SI style photos with a running back streaming across a blurred background -- the sort of thing you get with your 500mm f4 lens on a D4. I can sometimes get close with my DA 200 on my K5, but it is awfully easy for the background to get clutter-y.

The photos that people post to show narrow depth of field usually involve getting close, aka macro type shots which usually have narrow depth of field by definition.

[Christine Tham]

The photos that people post to show narrow depth of field usually involve getting close, aka macro type shots which usually have narrow depth of field by definition.

That's why I posted examples which are not shot from a close perspective, nor with an excessive telephoto FOV.

In fact, on a full frame sensor, shooting macro subjects typically involve shooting at f8 or f11 otherwise there is not enough DOF to give the subject proper definition.

Here is a neighbour's cat shot with the RX100 (aperture was f4.9 - so well within the range of the Nikon kit lens):

[johnmflores]

Sure. Just when I picture sports shooting I guess I picture the SI style photos with a running back streaming across a blurred background -- the sort of thing you get with your 500mm f4 lens on a D4. I can sometimes get close with my DA 200 on my K5, but it is awfully easy for the background to get clutter-y.

The photos that people post to show narrow depth of field usually involve getting close, aka macro type shots which usually have narrow depth of field by definition.

I don't think anyone here made any claims that a 1" sensor has the same DOF as a full-frame sensor. I've said that the V1 is perfect for soccer moms and dads, not SI pro photographers.

My post was a simple response to your simple post.

[Christine Tham]

I don't think anyone here made any claims that a 1" sensor has the same DOF as a full-frame sensor. I've said that the V1 is perfect for soccer moms and dads, not SI pro photographers.

Not exactly an SI photo, or even a good photo, but taken on the J1 with kit lens - most DSLRs with kit zooms really don't get much better in similar conditions (in fact, I remember my K10D would have a strong tendency of focusing on the background - which the J1 will never do):


In contrast, this is a picture of me, taken by a friend on a D800E in the same location. Yes, better bokeh, but not radically better - I do agree that a "soccer mum" will be perfectly happy with the sort of photos that the Nikon 1 is capable of producing:

---

Last edited by Christine Tham; 12-24-2012 at 01:43 PM.

[johnmflores]

Not exactly an SI photo, or even a good photo, but taken on the J1 with kit lens - most DSLRs with kit zooms really don't get much better in similar conditions (in fact, I remember my K10D would have a strong tendency of focusing on the background - which the J1 will never do):


In contrast, this is a picture of me, taken by a friend on a D800E in the same location. Yes, better bokeh, but not radically better - I do agree that a "soccer mum" will be perfectly happy with the sort of photos that the Nikon 1 is capable of producing:

OT, but I was taught that your foot should be level with the ground (or even that the heel should be able to drop below the pedal axis) at the bottom of your pedal stroke. By that measure it looks like your saddle it at least a centimeter too high. That's old knowledge though - from the 80s - so new thinking on saddle height may be different.

[Christine Tham]

OT, but I was taught that your foot should be level with the ground (or even that the heel should be able to drop below the pedal axis) at the bottom of your pedal stroke. By that measure it looks like your saddle it at least a centimeter too high. That's old knowledge though - from the 80s - so new thinking on saddle height may be different.

LOL - there are probably many theories for saddle height - and there are bike shops these days that will use video capture and power meters coupled to computer analysis to determine correct bike fit.

Me - I just adjust it till it feels right. I must admit though - I think I have taken the saddle down a notch since that photo - I think that photo was taken fairly soon after I've built that bike (I built it from the frame up) - I know I was still fiddling with minor adjustments a few weeks after. The bike is named "Cadel" - I think I finished the build pretty much the day Cadel won the Tour de France in 2011.

PS - and some people think photography is an expensive hobby. A really good set of racing wheels will cost more than a Leica M9.

[Clicker]

Don't worry guys, when the pink Hello Kitty version comes out, Christine will forget all bout this thread