Photos - Wild Flowers - Page 3

Michael S wrote:

> I don't bother with DOF preview anymore as I *know* what
> my DOF is going to be at various apertures from
> 'experience'.

Easier if you use fixed lenses, not so easy with a zoom.

>> I've never got on with DOF previews. Usually the image is
>> too dark to clearly see what's in focus anyway.

> With DOF, the viewfinder is only really so dark as to be
> useless when using a small aperture (f16 to f32),

That's precisely when I tend to use it.

> in which case DOF isn't *as* critical, as the DOF is
> much wider.

No, that's when it is critical for me, because I need a
*huge* DOF, for example trying to get a rock or flower a few
inches away in focus with a distant mountain behind.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

Hi Icarus,

No problems, and thanks for sharing.

My preferred photo from Formby Point is this one: http://y2-
u.co.uk/&002_Images/Formby%20Point/Formby_Point_10.jpg

And I agree with your favourite image from the Palm House,
as I've just replied in your latest post.

I've got loads of images from Formby Point, so I will
have to share them some time. Perhaps I will do a trip
report on one of the many walks there, and combine this
with some images.

Take care,

Ste

"Icarus" <john015436@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:97d9e678.0404190750.54fd8ece@posting.google.com...
| Ste
|
| Thanks for the compliments. I must say it is great the
| postive replies and critism I have had from everyone.
|
| My favourite photo from Formby Point is :-
|
| http://y2u.co.uk/%26002_Images/Formb...t/Formby_Poin-
| t_25.jpg
|
| From Sefton Palm House is :-
|
|
http://y2u.co.uk/%26002_Images/Sefto...0Palm%20House-
/Palm_House_16.jpg
|
| I explain my cameras and other photos on :-
|
| http://y2u.co.uk/%26002_Images/Photos%2001.htm
|
| Peace
|
| Icarus
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "stemc ©" <ste@sm9sm9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<4082fa68$0$3915$fa0fcedb@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>...
| > "Icarus" <john015436@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
| > news:97d9e678.0404170535.10d75a09@posting.google.com...
| > | Hi
| > |
| > | Have a look at these great pictures of Wild Flowers in
| > | England
| > |
| > | Comments welcome.
| > |
| > | http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Wild%20Flowers%2001.htm
| > |
| > | Icarus
| >
| > Hi Icarus, I notice you've also got photos of Formby
| > Point (a local
haunt to
| > me, and some you've got some nice images there), and
| > Sefton Park Palm
House.
| > Where about are you based, and what camera are you
| > using?
| >
| > Ste

"Phil Cook" <u-r-walk@p-t-cook.RfErMeOeVsEeCrAvPeS.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fai780pk0fvpgbi5sj8k6rs1muh9mfiftp@4ax.com...
| On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:30:04 +0100, stemc © wrote:
|
| >| OK then have a look at my site not many flower photos
| >| on there though
| >
| >I didn't see any I'm afraid.
|
| There are a couple, but they are flowers in the landscape.
|
| http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/...s/381ae564.jpg
| http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/...s/381ae579.jpg

Yes, more landscape shots than flower shots, so that's why I
never spotted them. Not one to be a spoil sport, here's a
few of my flower snaps for you to get your teeth into...

http://www.sm9.co.uk/images/bluebells.jpg I took this one in
my front garden last night. I like the composition of this
image, except it was getting dark and I wish I had went in
the house to get my flash; as I didn't get as fast a shutter
speed as I would have liked, and the stem looks a bit dark.
Also, this is a prime example of why you should use a big
aperture, to reduce the distractions in the background. I
actually used the smallest aperture I could for the focal
length (f3.0), but digital cameras with fixed lenses don't
blur it as good as film cameras or DSLR's.

http://www.sm9.co.uk/images/flowerbee.jpg I've always liked
this one because it was one of those chance opportunities
that you don't see every day.

| >| Say what you like
| >
| >I'm just joking Phil, relax my friend! ;-)
|
| I know you are, and I'm deadly serious!

Oooh! :-)

| >| I know Mr. Dainty thinks they are crap :-) Some
| >| pictures on there are snaps, some have taken a lot of
| >| effort in the taking and processing in PS. http://www.p-t-
| >| cook.freeserve.co.uk
| >
| >Yes, some nice photos there, well done.
| >
| >I particularly enjoyed this one, though I understand that
| >you probably
never
| >took it yourself: http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/Feb04/me-
| >hourn.jpg
|
| Ah but I did, I cart a lightweight tripod about with me.
| Actually that is one of my better self portraits, they
| usually come out terrible.

Well I pass the credit straight back to yourself! ;-)

| >But also enjoyed these ones:
| >
| >http://mysite.freeserve.com/phil_spix/Oct03/food.jpg A
| >bit out of focus, but nice composition!
|
| That was a snap. I think the autofocus failed due to dim
| light, more dark than light.

I was just joking when I picked out that one! ;-)

| >http://mysite.freeserve.com/phil_spi...3/tnf-tent.jpg
| >Nice one!
|
| Another snap.

;-)

| >http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/Feb04/hiding.jpg I've
| >got a shot similar to this from Malham.
|
| Carefully crafted photograph.

I think you've got some excellent shots on your webiste, but
for the purposes of joking about, I never picked them out in
my post, as you've probably gathered! ;-) I picked the above
photo out because it reminded me slightly of one of my
snaps, whilst I was in Malham last year, except I was zoomed
in a bit more: http://www.sm9.co.uk/images/malham.jpg

| --
| Phil Cook

Ste

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c661u6$eir$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
| stemc © wrote:
|
| > I've had both good and bad bokeh from my Fuji and Canon
| > digital cameras, so I reckon it must also depend on the
| > conditions etc.
|
| I thought it was a fixed characterisic of the lens, but
| maybe it changes with different zoom lengths.
|
| Paul

I'll try and dig out some examples for you some time Paul,
and let you know if there's a pattern.

Ste

Hi Icarus,

No problems for any comments. I'm also guilty of not taking
time with my photography, and lately, I've not done much at
all (apart from in the front garden!).

I'd definitely recommend a better quality camera. I use a
Canon G5, which I'm happy with. If you can afford it, look
at one of the new 8 megapixel offerings, or even a D-SLR
(Canon EOS 10D springs to mind).

Sorry for suggesting you took a screen grab! ;-) How do
you process your images when they are on your computer?
The quality of some of them looks a bit ropey, so I'm sure
this can be improved, so people can enjoy them even more.
Do you use Photoshop at all? I don't edit my images much
in there, apart from adjusting the levels, saturation,
resizing, and adding a bit of unsharp mask. It makes all
the difference though.

Take care,

Ste

"Icarus" <john015436@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:97d9e678.0404190815.3e83019f@posting.google.com...
| Ste & Phil Cook
|
| Thanks for your comments.
|
| The problem as I see it is that I do not take time with my
| photography. It is much a hit and miss affair with me. I
| tend to take photos on the fly.
|
| I will have to get a good quality tripod to make sure of
| better focus and a bigger mega pixel camera and one where
| I can control depth of field.
|
| I do not pretend the photos are top quality but saying
| that I enjoy taking them and many people appear to have
| had some pleasure looking at some of the beautiful wild
| flowers of England.
|
| No I did not use a screen grab from a video :-)
|
| Peace
|
| Icarus
|
| ---------------------------------------------------
| http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_051.jpg
| http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_043.jpg
| http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_020.jpg
| http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_012.jpg
|
| http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/Feb04/me-
| hourn.jpg
| http://mysite.freeserve.com/phil_spix/Oct03/food.jpg ttp://mysite.freeserve.com/phil_spix/Oct03/tnf-
| tent.jpg http://www.p-t-
| cook.freeserve.co.uk/Feb04/hiding.jpg

Hi Stemc

I would love a new Canon 8 megapixel camera, but the cost. A
meduim format camera with a digital back is my dream,
especially for landscapes.

The reason the picture quality is poor is because I have to
restrict image size because of bandwidth restrictions. If
anyone wants a hi-res image all they have to is ask, the
quality is much better.

I use ULEAD to manipulate the images.

And thanks all for your comments and suggestions

Peace

Icarus

http://y2u.co.uk

----------------------------------------------------------
----------

"stemc ©" <ste@sm9sm9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<408ba968$0$31691$fa0fcedb@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>...
> Hi Icarus,
>
> No problems for any comments. I'm also guilty of not
> taking time with my photography, and lately, I've not done
> much at all (apart from in the front garden!).
>
> I'd definitely recommend a better quality camera. I use a
> Canon G5, which I'm happy with. If you can afford it, look
> at one of the new 8 megapixel offerings, or even a D-SLR
> (Canon EOS 10D springs to mind).
>
> Sorry for suggesting you took a screen grab! ;-) How do
> you process your images when they are on your computer?
> The quality of some of them looks a bit ropey, so I'm sure
> this can be improved, so people can enjoy them even more.
> Do you use Photoshop at all? I don't edit my images much
> in there, apart from adjusting the levels, saturation,
> resizing, and adding a bit of unsharp mask. It makes all
> the difference though.
>
> Take care,
>
> Ste
>
>
> "Icarus" <john015436@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:97d9e678.0404190815.3e83019f@posting.google.com...
> | Ste & Phil Cook
> |
> | Thanks for your comments.
> |
> | The problem as I see it is that I do not take time with
> | my photography. It is much a hit and miss affair with
> | me. I tend to take photos on the fly.
> |
> | I will have to get a good quality tripod to make sure of
> | better focus and a bigger mega pixel camera and one
> | where I can control depth of field.
> |
> | I do not pretend the photos are top quality but saying
> | that I enjoy taking them and many people appear to have
> | had some pleasure looking at some of the beautiful wild
> | flowers of England.
> |
> | No I did not use a screen grab from a video :-)
> |
> | Peace
> |
> | Icarus
> |
> | ---------------------------------------------------
> | http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_051.jpg
> | http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_043.jpg
> | http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_020.jpg
> | http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_012.jpg
> |
> | http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/Feb04/me-
> | hourn.jpg
> | http://mysite.freeserve.com/phil_spix/Oct03/food.jpg ttp://mysite.freeserve.com/phil_spix/Oct03/tnf-
> | tent.jpg http://www.p-t-
> | cook.freeserve.co.uk/Feb04/hiding.jpg

Hi Icarus,

I know what you mean about the cost of these cameras, I also
wish I could afford one right now.

I've just looked at a few of the pages and didn't think it
was poor to be honest. I think I must have read other
comments without thinking for myself. Most of them are good,
so I take back the ropey comment! :-)

I've never used any of the Ulead products, but I think
Photoshop is excellent of course! ;-)

Adios amigo,

Ste

"Icarus" <john015436@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:97d9e678.0404280950.7c0f421d@posting.google.com...
| Hi Stemc
|
| I would love a new Canon 8 megapixel camera, but the cost.
| A meduim format camera with a digital back is my dream,
| especially for landscapes.
|
| The reason the picture quality is poor is because I have
| to restrict image size because of bandwidth restrictions.
| If anyone wants a hi-res image all they have to is ask,
| the quality is much better.
|
| I use ULEAD to manipulate the images.
|
| And thanks all for your comments and suggestions
|
| Peace
|
| Icarus
|
|
| http://y2u.co.uk
|
|
|
| ----------------------------------------------------------
| ----------
|
|
|
| "stemc ©" <ste@sm9sm9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<408ba968$0$31691$fa0fcedb@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>...
| > Hi Icarus,
| >
| > No problems for any comments. I'm also guilty of not
| > taking time with
my
| > photography, and lately, I've not done much at all
| > (apart from in the
front
| > garden!).
| >
| > I'd definitely recommend a better quality camera. I use
| > a Canon G5,
which
| > I'm happy with. If you can afford it, look at one of
| > the new 8
megapixel
| > offerings, or even a D-SLR (Canon EOS 10D springs to
| > mind).
| >
| > Sorry for suggesting you took a screen grab! ;-) How do
| > you process
your
| > images when they are on your computer? The quality of
| > some of them
looks a
| > bit ropey, so I'm sure this can be improved, so people
| > can enjoy them
even
| > more. Do you use Photoshop at all? I don't edit my
| > images much in
there,
| > apart from adjusting the levels, saturation, resizing,
| > and adding a bit
of
| > unsharp mask. It makes all the difference though.
| >
| > Take care,
| >
| > Ste
| >
| >
| > "Icarus" <john015436@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
| > news:97d9e678.0404190815.3e83019f@posting.google.com...
| > | Ste & Phil Cook
| > |
| > | Thanks for your comments.
| > |
| > | The problem as I see it is that I do not take time
| > | with my photography. It is much a hit and miss affair
| > | with me. I tend to take photos on the fly.
| > |
| > | I will have to get a good quality tripod to make sure
| > | of better focus and a bigger mega pixel camera and one
| > | where I can control depth of field.
| > |
| > | I do not pretend the photos are top quality but saying
| > | that I enjoy taking them and many people appear to
| > | have had some pleasure looking at some of the
| > | beautiful wild flowers of England.
| > |
| > | No I did not use a screen grab from a video :-)
| > |
| > | Peace
| > |
| > | Icarus
| > |
| > | ---------------------------------------------------
| > | http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_051.jpg
| > | http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_043.jpg
| > | http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_020.jpg
| > | http://y2u.co.uk/&002_Images/Flowers/Flower_012.jpg
| > |
| > | http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/Feb04/me-
| > | hourn.jpg
| > | http://mysite.freeserve.com/phil_spix/Oct03/food.jpg
| > | ttp://mysite.freeserve.com/phil_spix/Oct03/tnf-
| > | tent.jpg http://www.p-t-
| > | cook.freeserve.co.uk/Feb04/hiding.jpg

> > With DOF, the viewfinder is only really so dark as to be
> > useless when using a small aperture (f16 to f32),
>
> That's precisely when I tend to use it.
>
> > in which case DOF isn't *as* critical, as the DOF is
> > much wider.
>
> No, that's when it is critical for me, because I need a
> *huge* DOF, for example trying to get a rock or flower a
> few inches away in focus with a distant mountain behind.
>
> Paul

Well just focus on the foreground rock and set the minimum
aperture available (f22 or f32). That will usually send the
DoF to infinity - the scale on your lens will confirm this.
Or use hyperfocal focusing to focus slightly beyond the
foreground rock if DoF doesn't extend to infinity.

In situations where you want (for example) a foreground rock
and a distant mountain to be in focus, DoF is critical in
the sense that you don't want the mountain to be OOF when
you focus on the foreground rock, but setting the camera to
achieve this is about as simple as it gets! Like I said
above, it's just a case of setting a minimum aperture. DoF
would only become a 'complex' issue if you *didn't* want the
background mountain in focus - in which case the choice of
aperture would depend on how OOF you wanted the mountain to
be (totally blurred beyond recognition, only slightly
blurred so it is still obviously a mountain but doesn't take
attention away from the rock etc. etc.) - in which case DoF
preview may be of use.

If you want pretty much everything in focus from front to
back then it's just a case of setting aperure to f22 (or
f32 if your lens can). And if minimum aperture doesn't get
it all in focus then that's just tough, the shot ain't
gonna happen!

I don't recall anybody I know ever using DoF preview on a
minimum aperture, max DoF landscape image.

Regards,

Michael S

Michael S wrote:

>>> With DOF, the viewfinder is only really so dark as to be
>>> useless when using a small aperture (f16 to f32),
>>
>> That's precisely when I tend to use it.
>>
>>> in which case DOF isn't *as* critical, as the DOF is
>>> much wider.
>>
>> No, that's when it is critical for me, because I need a
>> *huge* DOF, for example trying to get a rock or flower a
>> few inches away in focus with a distant mountain behind.
>
> Well just focus on the foreground rock and set the minimum
> aperture available (f22 or f32). That will usually send
> the DoF to infinity -

You're probably thinking of a fairly normal composition, I'm
thinking of when the camera is *extremely* close to the
foreground object. I've had situations when I couldn't get
both in focus, even at f32. So you can imagine how close I'm
talking about.

> the scale on your lens will confirm this.

But zoom lenses rarely have scales, or at least not very
useful ones.

> Or use hyperfocal focusing to focus slightly beyond the
> foreground rock if DoF doesn't extend to infinity.

I'd certainly prefer that, if I had a scale on the lens, but
I'm thinking of situations where I'm using zooms.

> In situations where you want (for example) a foreground
> rock and a distant mountain to be in focus, DoF is
> critical in the sense that you don't want the mountain to
> be OOF when you focus on the foreground rock, but setting
> the camera to achieve this is about as simple as it gets!
> Like I said above, it's just a case of setting a minimum
> aperture.

Only if it's a *normal* photograph. I was talking about
*extreme* close ups.

> DoF would only become a 'complex' issue if you *didn't*
> want the background mountain in focus - in which case the
> choice of aperture would depend on how OOF you wanted the
> mountain to be (totally blurred beyond recognition, only
> slightly blurred so it is still obviously a mountain but
> doesn't take attention away from the rock etc. etc.) - in
> which case DoF preview may be of use.

True. I'm tending to take more longer focal length shots
these days so DOF is an issue more often.

> If you want pretty much everything in focus from front to
> back then it's just a case of setting aperure to f22 (or
> f32 if your lens can). And if minimum aperture doesn't get
> it all in focus then that's just tough, the shot ain't
> gonna happen!

As I've discovered a few times.

> I don't recall anybody I know ever using DoF preview on a
> minimum aperture, max DoF landscape image.

Well now you do! :-)

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:12:00 +0100, "Paul Saunders"
<pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>You're probably thinking of a fairly normal composition,
>I'm thinking of when the camera is *extremely* close to the
>foreground object. I've had situations when I couldn't get
>both in focus, even at f32. So you can imagine how close
>I'm talking about.

Hey Paul, prepare yourself... incoming "but why don't you
use" question alert!! ;-)

Er forgive my silly question, but itsn't that what the macro
setting is all about?

As seen here http://thenmc.org.uk/pages/gallery/album02
distance to extremely funky looking algae (or whatever
they were) about 10mm.. the height of the "stalks" seen is
only 4-8mm

Soz, I'm sure you've got it covered but I had to ask ;-)
plus I love those photies... quite surreal.


SteveO

NE Climbers & walkers chat forum;
http://www.thenmc.org.uk/phpBB2/index.php

NMC website: http://www.thenmc.org.uk

<Steve Orrell> wrote in message
news:r5ccb0top7kth1fcae6ppgs865eqoscnoi@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:12:00 +0100, "Paul Saunders"
> <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >You're probably thinking of a fairly normal composition,
> >I'm thinking of when the camera is *extremely* close to
> >the foreground object. I've had situations when I
> >couldn't get both in focus, even at f32. So you can
> >imagine how close I'm talking about.
>
> Hey Paul, prepare yourself... incoming "but why don't you
> use" question alert!! ;-)

I'm not Paul, but I will be playing him on WebTV :-)

> Er forgive my silly question, but itsn't that what the
> macro setting is all about?

That's what it's for, but it's not magic, ie it's still
subject to laws of physics.

> As seen here http://thenmc.org.uk/pages/gallery/album02
> distance to extremely funky looking algae (or whatever
> they were) about 10mm.. the height of the "stalks" seen is
> only 4-8mm

That's impressive.

> Soz, I'm sure you've got it covered but I had to ask ;-)
> plus I love those photies... quite surreal.

The thing is that the actual depth of field fraction you can
obtain is limited by the actual focal length (not the 35mm
equivalent so beloved of digital camera manufacturers). Paul
is probably talking about his EOS 300D.

I can make the explanation longer but you would not thank me
and I take enough anti-photo flames here as it is :-)
--
"To ... just not care that there are naked triathletes
running across your lawn, that's just a waste of
exhibitionism."
- Kibo, in alt.religion.kibology

On Thu, 27 May 2004 21:58:21 +0200, Mark South wrote:

><Steve Orrell> wrote in message
>news:r5ccb0top7kth1fcae6ppgs865eqoscnoi@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:12:00 +0100, "Paul Saunders"
>> <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >You're probably thinking of a fairly normal composition,
>> >I'm thinking of when the camera is *extremely* close to
>> >the foreground object. I've had situations when I
>> >couldn't get both in focus, even at f32. So you can
>> >imagine how close I'm talking about.

>> Er forgive my silly question, but itsn't that what the
>> macro setting is all about?
>
>That's what it's for, but it's not magic, ie it's still
>subject to laws of physics.

The Macro setting on a lens is to enable it to focus on very
close objects. This is normaly done at the expense of
distant focus, you have to take it off macro to focus at
infinity. There are macro lenses out there for 35mm SLRs
that continuously focus from a few inches to infinity but as
you say Mark it isn't magic and the laws of physics mean it
can be impossible to obtain DOF from a few inches to
infinity unless you resort to a tilt-shift lens.

>The thing is that the actual depth of field fraction
>you can obtain is limited by the actual focal length
>(not the 35mm equivalent so beloved of digital camera
>manufacturers). Paul is probably talking about his
>EOS 300D.

But the circle of confusion is differently sized for
differing film or sensor formats so in effect the lens focal
length 35mm equivalent.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the
"Westminster Gasworks"
95/284 5/219 c.100/300 (>900m with drop>100m )

Mark South wrote:

> The thing is that the actual depth of field fraction
> you can obtain is limited by the actual focal length
> (not the 35mm equivalent so beloved of digital camera
> manufacturers). Paul is probably talking about his
> EOS 300D.

No, I was talking about my film camera, thinking of a
specific situation many years ago where I photographed a
fern right in front of the camera with a waterfall in the
distance behind. I couldn't get them both in focus,

Depth of field with the 300D is better than with a film
camera since my "29mm equivalent" is really an 18mm.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

Phil Cook wrote:

> the laws of physics mean it can be impossible to obtain
> DOF from a few inches to infinity unless you resort to a
> tilt-shift lens.

I'm sure I've seen a pic on the internet showing a flower a
few inches in front of the camera in perfect focus with a
distant mountain in the background. It was taken with an
extreme wide angle lens, can't remember how wide, may have
been 15mm or 16mm.

>> The thing is that the actual depth of field fraction
>> you can obtain is limited by the actual focal length
>> (not the 35mm equivalent so beloved of digital camera
>> manufacturers). Paul is probably talking about his
>> EOS 300D.
>
> But the circle of confusion is differently sized for
> differing film or sensor formats so in effect the lens
> focal length 35mm equivalent.

Actually Phil, I don't think it is. AIUI the focal length
determines the depth of field, irrepespective of the size of
film. For example, my 6x6 camera has a 75mm lens which is
equivalent to a standard lens, but has shallower depth of
field. Even more extreme, the 90mm lens on my 6x9 camera is
equivalent to roughly a 35mm wide angle but has a very
shallow depth of field, since it would be a medium telephoto
on a 35mm camera. To get a decent DOF out of it I have to
stop it right down (it goes down to f45) and I have the
option of resorting to camera back movements if necessary.

Applying this logic in reverse, the smaller sensor size
means more DOF for the focal length equivalent, or to put it
another way, the same DOF that you'd expect for the actual
focal length. As another example, the 300mm lens I borrowed
recently was equivalent to a 480mm but the DOF definitely
wasn't as shallow as a 480mm would be.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c9a0te$fjj$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Phil Cook wrote:
>
> > the laws of physics mean it can be impossible to obtain
> > DOF from a few inches to infinity unless you resort to a
> > tilt-shift lens.
>
> I'm sure I've seen a pic on the internet showing a flower
> a few inches in front of the camera in perfect focus with
> a distant mountain in the background. It was taken with an
> extreme wide angle lens, can't remember how wide, may have
> been 15mm or 16mm.
>
> >> The thing is that the actual depth of field fraction
> >> you can obtain is limited by the actual focal length
> >> (not the 35mm equivalent so beloved of digital camera
> >> manufacturers). Paul is probably talking about his EOS
> >> 300D.
> >
> > But the circle of confusion is differently sized for
> > differing film or sensor formats so in effect the lens
> > focal length 35mm equivalent.
>
> Actually Phil, I don't think it is. AIUI the focal length
> determines the depth of field, irrepespective of the size
> of film. For example, my 6x6 camera has a 75mm lens which
> is equivalent to a standard lens, but has shallower depth
> of field. Even more extreme, the 90mm lens on my 6x9
> camera is equivalent to roughly a 35mm wide angle but has
> a very shallow depth of field, since it would be a medium
> telephoto on a 35mm camera. To get a decent DOF out of it
> I have to stop it right down (it goes down to f45) and I
> have the option of resorting to camera back movements if
> necessary.
>
> Applying this logic in reverse, the smaller sensor size
> means more DOF for the focal length equivalent, or to put
> it another way, the same DOF that you'd expect for the
> actual focal length. As another example, the 300mm lens I
> borrowed recently was equivalent to a 480mm but the DOF
> definitely wasn't as shallow as a 480mm would be.

To simplify the discussion: longer focal length lenses have
physically larger circles of confusion away from the point
of focus, and angle of view means that larger formats have
longer focal length lenses providing the same angle of view.
Maximal depth of field means a short focal length lens on a
small format. Unless you want me to explain scheimpflug
movements for view cameras :-)
--

-- M.