Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 10, 2004, 11:29 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 38
Default

I recently acquired a Canon Powershot Pro 1. Overall I am very happy with it but one thing that worries me a little is that the the highest f-stop is 8.

Is this the standard for that level digital camera, (high-end compact), and in general usage, am I likely to find it limiting?
muskrat sam is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 10, 2004, 11:39 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
photosbyvito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,710
Default

well...it is limiting but only in the exposure side of it, you can't use an extra small arperture to be able to use a longer shutter...buuuuuuuuut....the DOF is MUCH bigger with the compact digitals, because of the small focal length (right? i think..lol)

hope this helps
photosbyvito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2004, 1:48 AM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 38
Default

If that's the case, photosbyvito, I'm happy because I can compensate exposure times by reducing the ISO and applying the neutral density filter. Thanks. :-)
muskrat sam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2004, 1:53 AM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 38
Default

But does this also mean that it's difficult to de-focus the background for a portrait shot?
muskrat sam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2004, 3:29 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
marokero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 769
Default

Yes, you won't get as shallow depth of field due to the smaller sensor size. Similar to a medium format camera having a shallower depth of field than 35mm due to it's much larger film size. You can use a neutral density filter when a lower ISO and really high shutter speed don'y give you enough latitude with f/8. On smaller sensor digicams an f/8 aperture can make images look like they were taken at f/11 or f/16.
marokero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2004, 12:55 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Mikefellh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 1,707
Default

muskrat sam wrote:
Quote:
But does this also mean that it's difficult to de-focus the background for a portrait shot?
In-camera, yes...but that's what Photoshop is for.
Mikefellh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 2004, 10:59 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
marokero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 769
Default

Photoshop isn't a cure for all underachievements of our cameras. Shallow DOF (depth of field) blurs the background at different ammounts as objects get farther behind or ahead of the main subject. Selectively bluring the background/foreground in Photoshop blurs everything with the same ammount and looks artificial/fake. For the most background bluring effect from camera, zoom your lens to its greatest focal lengh and use the largest aperture setting available.
marokero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 2004, 12:10 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

marokero wrote:
Quote:
Photoshop isn't a cure for all underachievements of our cameras. Shallow DOF (depth of field) blurs the background at different ammounts as objects get farther behind or ahead of the main subject. Selectively bluring the background/foreground in Photoshop blurs everything with the same ammount and looks artificial/fake. For the most background bluring effect from camera, zoom your lens to its greatest focal lengh and use the largest aperture setting available.

I have found the small sensors and focal lengths of non-DSLR cameras require both to get a decent looking outdoor portrait. You can get a graduated blurring with distance using the widest aperture and manually focusing slightly short of the subject, but not enough to give that professional look. If you follow up with some blurring in Photoshop you don't get the same flat blur you would get selecting a sharp background and blurring it. You get a graduated blur that is hard to tell from a 35mm shot if you combine good technique and Photoshop.

I should think 1/4000 sec would handle f2.4 in most circumstances. A polarizer acts as a neutral density filter and does nice things for reflections and polarized skies. Unless you are going for graduated neutral density filters a polarizer is a better choice as a GP filter.
slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:00 PM.