Are there any PnS cameras that can do this?

[KimWDW]

I would love to have a camera that can take pictures where the person in front is clear and the background is blurred (I don't know the correct term for this type of picture). Are there any small point and shoot cameras that can do this? I have an HP Photosmart and it has a setting called Portrait that says it blurs the background... but it really doesn't. I don't even notice a difference between photos taken in Portrait or Auto mode.

My DH wants a new camera. One that's smaller than the Photosmart and can easily fit in his pocket. But I want better pictures. I don't know if those two things are mutually exclusive.

I'd be grateful for any recommendations.

 

[fortheluvofpooh]

not sure, but I can help a tiny bit. If you want the background blurred it has to be a distance away from your subject you are shooting. I don't have any hints on a PnS to get. Good Luck hope you get some answers.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

The types of pictures you want to get will be limited on a pns camera because of the small sensor size and ability of it's aperture to only open so far. (A wide aperture is what gives you the nice blur, called bokeh). Learn how to set the aperture to the widest (ie lowest f number) value possible, probably on either aperture priority or program mode (or manual, if your camera has that ability) to see what you can do on what you have or what you buy; portrait mode on many cameras has a set aperture that you can't change.

Look into the Canon G9. It's a great camera with the abilities you need (to a degree), and the size your DH is looking for.

With that said, it sounds like you and your husband need separate cameras. Hang around here and you'll learn a lot.

 

[bob100]

I would love to have a camera that can take pictures where the person in front is clear and the background is blurred (I don't know the correct term for this type of picture). Are there any small point and shoot cameras that can do this?

they can all do this .... with photoshop !)

 

[handicap18]

The problem with shallow depth of field on PnS camera's isn't really the sensor size, its more a factor of the small lenses that are on the camera's. Many PnS camera's have a f/2.8 as the widest aperture, however it doesn't compare to the f/2.8 you get with an SLR camera and lens.

I've seen people make the arguement that f/2.8 is f/2.8 no matter what lens your dealing with and on paper that is correct. True f/2.8 is a measurement of the size of the hole in the lens, but if your len's total width is smaller than the size of a dime your not going to be able to let in a lot of light. F/2.8 on a PnS performes different than f/2.8 on an SLR lens. This takes a way from a PnS's abililty to get good shallow DOF images. Many lenses for SLR bodies are much bigger than the whole of a PnS camera.

Thats not to say that its impossible. Best way is to get close to your subject and have your subject far away from the background. Its better to physically get closer with the camera than to zoom in. The more you zoom the smaller the aperture gets. Getting physically closer will allow you to use a wider aperture.

 

[Code]

The problem with shallow depth of field on PnS camera's isn't really the sensor size, its more a factor of the small lenses that are on the camera's. Many PnS camera's have a f/2.8 as the widest aperture, however it doesn't compare to the f/2.8 you get with an SLR camera and lens.

I've seen people make the arguement that f/2.8 is f/2.8 no matter what lens your dealing with and on paper that is correct. True f/2.8 is a measurement of the size of the hole in the lens, but if your len's total width is smaller than the size of a dime your not going to be able to let in a lot of light. F/2.8 on a PnS performes different than f/2.8 on an SLR lens. This takes a way from a PnS's abililty to get good shallow DOF images. Many lenses for SLR bodies are much bigger than the whole of a PnS camera.

This is incorrect... f/2.8 really is f/2.8 regardless of lens size. If a correct exposure for a scene is, say, ISO 200 f/2.8 1/100th on a film camera, it will still be correct at those settings on the tiniest of digital cameras. The f-number is not the measure of the size of the aperture hole as you said, but a ratio of lengths involving that size (f-number = focal length / aperture diameter) and thus is a dimensionless number.

Sensor size is what affects the depth of field when all else is equal. For instance, my small Fuji F30 point & shoot has a 1/1.7" sensor (one of the larger P&S sensors available), and thus a 4.5x crop factor. This means that all else being equal (equivalent focal length, aperture, and subject distance) it will have a depth of field 4.5x larger than a film or full frame digital camera.

Since most point & shoot cameras have a variable aperture, to get the most background blur possible, you need to stay completely zoomed out so that you are at the maximum size aperture. Also, get as close as you can to the subject, and have as much distance between the subject and the background as possible.

Just don't expect the creamy smooth bokeh you see from DSLRs.

 

[handicap18]

This is incorrect... f/2.8 really is f/2.8 regardless of lens size. If the correct exposure for a scene is, say, ISO 200 f/2.8 1/100th on a film camera, it will still be correct at those settings on the tiniest of digital cameras. The f-number is not the measure of the size of the aperture hole as you said, but a ratio of lengths involving that size (f-number = focal length / aperture diameter) and thus is a dimensionless number.

Sensor size is what affects the depth of field when all else is equal. For instance, my small Fuji F30 point & shoot has a 1/1.7" sensor (one of the larger P&S sensors available), and thus a 4.5x crop factor. This means that all else being equal (equivalent focal length, aperture, and subject distance) it will have a depth of field 4.5x larger than a film or full frame digital camera.

Ok, I believe now that your correct. I think I had the basic end result, I just got there in the wrong math or what ever it was. However in the end performance of f/2.8 on a PnS is different than f/2.8 on an SLR and that is different than f/2.8 on a medium format.

A dSLR sensor is what, about 3 times the size of a PnS sensor, therefor the aperture is effected 3 times. This is why f/2.8 on a PnS sensor camera has the same DOF as f/8 on a dSLR. Thus making a shallow depth of field image much more difficult.

This is why I said that people will argue that f/2.8 is f/2.8, I just had my head in the wrong direction. Similar to 300mm is 300mm whether its film or a non FF digital sensor. Crop factor gives a different field of view.

So do we call the aperture difference between a dSLR and PnS the "DOF factor". Do we know exactly the size difference (I had math, especially algebra) between the 2 different PnS sensors and dSLR sensors (4 3rds and CMOS). We can probably get more of an exact math.

This does mean the same thing for wanting deep DOF. F/8 on a PnS would give the same DOF as f/22 with a dSLR.

Since most point & shoot cameras have a variable aperture, to get the most background blur possible, you need to stay completely zoomed out so that you are at the maximum size aperture. Also, get as close as you can to the subject, and have as much distance between the subject and the background as possible.

Just don't expect the creamy smooth bokeh you see from DSLRs.

Yep. Those variable aperture lenses can also hurt a dSLR too, but not as dramatically.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

This seems relevant here, especially the little video at the end.

http://pirbazari.blogspot.com/2008/05/blog-post.html

 

[handicap18]

So do we call the aperture difference between a dSLR and PnS the "DOF factor". Do we know exactly the size difference (I had math, especially algebra) between the 2 different PnS sensors and dSLR sensors (4 3rds and CMOS). We can probably get more of an exact math.

I did some research and this is what I found.

My D50's sensor is 23.7x15.7 and a 1/2.5" PnS sensor is 5.76x4.29. So the dSLR is approx 3.5 times the size of that PnS sensor. So a PnS at f/2.8, 3.5 stops would be f/9 DOF equilivent compared to a dSLR (if I have my math correct).

 

[seashoreCM]

What you need is being able to override the camera with manual focusing.

You focus for a closer distance than the subject is. This also brings the depth of field range close to you. This way the subject is near but still inside the depth of field range while the background you want blurred is perhaps still near but outside the depth of field range.

You still need trial and error to find out where the depth of field range moves as you change the focus.

(You still want to make the depth of field range as small as possible which includes choosing the largest aperture available.)

>>> F/2.8 is f/2.8.
This is always true. Even if the lens is moved to a camera with a smaller sensor size, the amount of light admitted per square millimeter of film or sensor surface stays the same. (Using a lens for a larger sensor or film frame size than the lens is meant for may exceed the sweet spot area and all bets are off regarding performance.)

>>> 300mm is 300mm.
In an absolute sense this is always true. But focal length such as 300mm is also used to imply a field of view when discussing telephoto and zoom lenses. When we move a lens to a camera with a different sensor (or film frame) size, the absolute focal length remains the same but the field of view spanned by the new sensor is different. Photographers use either the number known as the crop factor or a pseudo focal length termed 35mm equivalent to discuss field of view with.

Digital camera hints: http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/digicam.htm

 

[bob100]

What you need is being able to override the camera with manual focusing.
You focus for a closer distance than the subject is. This also brings the depth of field range close to you. This way the subject is near but still inside the depth of field range while the background you want blurred is perhaps still near but outside the depth of field range.
You still need trial and error to find out where the depth of field range moves as you change the focus.
(You still want to make the depth of field range as small as possible which includes choosing the largest aperture available.)
>>> F/2.8 is f/2.8.
This is always true. Even if the lens is moved to a camera with a smaller sensor size, the amount of light admitted per square millimeter of film or sensor surface stays the same. (Using a lens for a larger sensor or film frame size than the lens is meant for may exceed the sweet spot area and all bets are off regarding performance.
>>> 300mm is 300mm.
In an absolute sense this is always true. But focal length such as 300mm is also used to imply a field of view when discussing telephoto and zoom lenses. When we move a lens to a camera with a different sensor (or film frame) size, the absolute focal length remains the same but the field of view spanned by the new sensor is different. Photographers use either the number known as the crop factor or a pseudo focal length termed 35mm equivalent to discuss field of view with.

all true but if you have a P &S it's difficult to get that "Bokeh" effect in a portrait type shot (what the OP wanted) just a reminder, you can simulate it with photoshop, perhaps better than this example!

.

 

[Disnewbie_N_MO]

This is taken with my Sony point and shoot. Not sure if this is what u are talking about or not.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Ah, Newbie, you beat me to it. I was going to post some photo examples as well.

Taken with my point and shoot specifically for a depth of field assignment. This was the best bokeh I could achieve. Not bad, really.

Taken with my dSLR. This is the type of bokeh I wanted to get and one of the big reasons I made the jump. Love it. (Pardon the fact that it's not completely sharp; I'm still learning.)

So you can get some blur with a point and shoot. The thing is, will it be enough for what you want? That's the question.

 

[Gdad]

Yes it can be done- this was taken with a Pentax W20 P&S at f4

Much easier to achieve and pleasing with a dslr even with a basic lens though- this was taken with a D80 at f5.6

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Great topic. As you have seen, the short answer is "yes, but it is much harder." The further things are from your subject, the blurrier they get. They get blurrier faster when you use a camera with a bigger sensor. DSLR sensors come in a variety of sizes but are always bigger than P&S sensors, so they make the effect easier to achieve. P&S sensors also come in different sizes, so if you go looking for a new P&S, make that one of your decision criteria.

If I get time later today, I'll give more details on the subject. There are some simple formulas that quantify the effects. Understanding them will make it easier to know what will and won't work.

For simple, practical advice, move your subject closer to you and shoot them with the background as far away from you as possible. Also, zoom in as much as possible.

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

Taken with my dSLR. This is the type of bokeh I wanted to get and one of the big reasons I made the jump. Love it. (Pardon the fact that it's not completely sharp; I'm still learning.)

OMG! It's a beautiful photo! I honestly don't see that's it's not 'completely sharp.' Seems to me everything that is supposed to be in focus is in focus. Am I missing something>

 

[KimWDW]

Thanks so much everyone for all the info and pictures!

 

[wenrob]

Code says to be, 'zoomed out,' Mark says, 'zoom in as much as you can.' Since all of you say to be as close to your subject as possible that you mean 'do not extend your lens,' or 'extend your lens as little as possible.'

 

[Gdad]

Code says to be, 'zoomed out,' Mark says, 'zoom in as much as you can.' Since all of you say to be as close to your subject as possible that you mean 'do not extend your lens,' or 'extend your lens as little as possible.'

Using a longer focal length (zooming in) on your subject will cut down on the depth of field (range of elements in the picture which are in focus) - keeping some distance between your subject and the background will isolate the subject and make a pleasing out of focus backdrop.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

OMG! It's a beautiful photo! I honestly don't see that's it's not 'completely sharp.' Seems to me everything that is supposed to be in focus is in focus. Am I missing something>

Thanks, glad you like it. There was a discussion about the sharpness of it on The Learning Curve thread (on the last page or so) if you want to read about it.