Digital Camera

[Muushka]

Thanks guys. I have read some reviews, but to be honest the info that they write is a bit too much for this little brain to absorb. I will check out the DPreview. My old Pentax was totally manual, so I am not even familiar with the auto features (only what came on my Kodak DC4800 which I don't use too much (-the auto features, not the camera, I use that a lot!)).

OK, I have homework to do and I thank you both for the great information.

 

[Muushka]

Originally posted by Muushka
So, tell me, how is the D100? ! Is the D100 an awesome camera? Is it worth the extra $800 or so? Just wondering why you would also want the D70? I have been looking at the Nikons and I do not have any lenses in stock (just one from my 32 year old Pentax-yikes!). I want a digital SLR so bad I can taste it Thanks

I quoted myself! I read the DPreview, now I understand the relationship between the D70 and the D100. It is all coming together for me now....... Thanks!

 

[brack]

ThreeCircles & Muushka: I do have some shots that I like a lot and will try to post them to my web site soon. I'll let you know when I get back off the road.

 

[Muushka]

Originally posted by brack
ThreeCircles & Muushka: I do have some shots that I like a lot and will try to post them to my web site soon. I'll let you know when I get back off the road.

I look forward to seeing that Digital SLR in action!

PS, just wondering, how do you find the 'depth of field' on the digital compared to the 35mm? I think that is the right term-when you focus on a subject close to the camera and the background is blurry. I love that and miss it so much on my non-SLR digital. And I miss having the option of which part of the picture I want to focus on. My weenie camera does a little, but not enough to suit me.

Thank you again for letting us know how that new camera is working!

 

[absame]

Digital SLR will give you the same depth of field flexibility you get with a film camera. The DW took some amazing shots at the NY Botanical Gardens of fields of flowers, some in focus the rest not == couldn't tell it was digital.

 

[Muushka]

Originally posted by absame
Digital SLR will give you the same depth of field flexibility you get with a film camera. The DW took some amazing shots at the NY Botanical Gardens of fields of flowers, some in focus the rest not == couldn't tell it was digital.

Be still my heart........ I can't wait!!!

Thanks, absame

 

[smchan]

Originally posted by Muushka
PS, just wondering, how do you find the 'depth of field' on the digital compared to the 35mm? I think that is the right term-when you focus on a subject close to the camera and the background is blurry. I love that and miss it so much on my non-SLR digital. And I miss having the option of which part of the picture I want to focus on. My weenie camera does a little, but not enough to suit me.

Depth of field control is there, but it's not necessarily the same as on a 35mm SLR. Most digital SLRs have a smaller-than-35mm sensor meaning photos taken with these lenses are cropped. The crop factor depends on the camera; my D100 crops at 1.5x. So, for example, when I use a 50mm lens I get the same view as using a 75mm lens on a full-frame film SLR.

What's this got to do with depth-of-field and the price of tea in China? Well... depth of field is a function of aperture, distance to subject and focal length. For a given aperture and given distance to subject, the field of "acceptable sharpness" descreases with focal length. In other words, the blurriness of the background increases with focal length. Likewise, as distance to subject increases for a constant focal length and constant aperture, the depth of field increases.

These relationships aren't linear, at some point the depth of field ceases to increase or descrease and remains constant. Most notably, the hyper focal point refers to the distance at which everything is in focus. Hyper focal point is further away as focal length increases.

Why is all this important, you ask? Let's go back to the crop factor. Point being that in order to achieve the same field of view with the same lens on digital SLR that's not full-frame as you would with a 35mm SLR, you've either got to back up or use a wider angle lens - both of which would cause you to have a deeper depth of field or more of the background in focus.

Check out this DoF calculator to see what I mean: http://dfleming.ameranet.com/dofjs.html

All that said, yes, you can get good depth of field with a digital SLR; just don't expect it to perform exactly like a 35mm because it is different.

Be aware there are other differences with digital SLRs that you don't have to think about with film: color management (especially when printing), white balance, buffer size and speed, and dealing with digital noise.

But it's worth it! I promise.

BTW, you can buy a full-frame DSLR but they cost big bucks. Those would behave more closely to the 35mm SLR you're used to.

I'll also add the Canon digital Rebel has a crop factor of 1.6, so the depth-of-field issue is slightly exacerbated over Nikon's crop factor of 1.5 though not nearly as much as when going from full-frame to 1.5 or 1.6.

Sam

 

[Muushka]

Thank you so much Sam for that explanation that I could actually (mostly) understand. My husband pulled up a chair and we both read it and have better grasp on the subject. I went to the link and did the calculations.

I just don't quite understand the relationship between Near and Far limit of acceptable sharpness and Hyperfocal distance (mostly I don't understand the Hyperfocal distance when using the calculations). If the near and far are calculated to be 5.85 and 6.16 (respectively) and the Hyperfocal distance is calculated to be 230.3 with a 50 mm focal length, f1.8 (at 6 feet from subject), does that mean that :
1. The subject will be in focus at aprox 6 feet give or take .15 ft.
2. The background will be somewhat in focus at up to 230 feet and all beyond 230 feet will be totally out of focus?

I see the numbers change quite a bit by enlarging the f stop to f/16- the acceptable range of sharpness is quite a bit broader (which I understand why that is) and the Hyperfocal distance is quite a bit smaller. I just don't understand the relationship between the two. The Hyperfocal distance went from 230 ft with the f1.8 down to 23 ft with the f16. What exactly does that mean?

If you have read all of this garbble, you have the patience of a saint! I have a great photography book that I have loaned out and need to get back ASAP! Thank you again for all of your help in the Digital SLR realm. Muushka (AKA Barb)

 

[absame]

okay, so i oversimplified this. We should move this thread to a phoh bulletin board.

another thing you;ll find amazing is the ability to correct/edit photos after the fact.

 

[Muushka]

Originally posted by absame
another thing you;ll find amazing is the ability to correct/edit photos after the fact.

Yes, I have a lot of experience with this. I just did some extra photos for a friends wedding and spent a very long time fixing those pictures! I have a lot of homework to do. Thanks

 

[smchan]

Originally posted by Muushka

I just don't quite understand the relationship between Near and Far limit of acceptable sharpness and Hyperfocal distance (mostly I don't understand the Hyperfocal distance when using the calculations). If the near and far are calculated to be 5.85 and 6.16 (respectively) and the Hyperfocal distance is calculated to be 230.3 with a 50 mm focal length, f1.8 (at 6 feet from subject), does that mean that :
1. The subject will be in focus at aprox 6 feet give or take .15 ft.
2. The background will be somewhat in focus at up to 230 feet and all beyond 230 feet will be totally out of focus?

I see the numbers change quite a bit by enlarging the f stop to f/16- the acceptable range of sharpness is quite a bit broader (which I understand why that is) and the Hyperfocal distance is quite a bit smaller. I just don't understand the relationship between the two. The Hyperfocal distance went from 230 ft with the f1.8 down to 23 ft with the f16. What exactly does that mean?

On your first point, yes, the subject will be in focus @ 6 feet give or take .15 feet.

On your second point, the hyperfocal distance is the point at which everything is in focus. In other words, with a 50mm lens at f1.8, if your subject is at 230.3 feet or more, everything from your subject back will be in focus. You'll notice the hyperfocus distance decreases as focal length decreases. Hyperfocus also descreases, I think, as the aperture gets smaller - which you pointed out in your last paragraph.

f1.8 is a "wide open" aperture. A lens that can do f1.8 is pretty fast and great for taking low-light shots. As you "stop down" is use a smaller aperture, like f16, the depth of field increases and more stuff comes into focus. (I know it seems backwards to say f16 is smaller than f1.8, but aperture is actually a fraction and a short hand way of saying 1/16 or 1/1.8 - and 1/16 is clearly smaller than 1/1.8. Also note that shooting at 1/16 requires more light, longer exposure time, or higher speed film than 1/1.8.)

Whatever digital SLR you decide upon, I strongly recommend starting with a 50mm/1.8 lens. My 2 most often used lenses are a 50/1.4 and a 85/1.8.

And don't sweat these technical details - you'll figure it out as you shoot more and more photos and develop a feel for your camera. Relax and remember it's different than film.

A good exercise, especially with digital, is to go outside, set up a static subject, and shoot the photo over and over again with varying apertures, shutter speeds and flash settings. Just change one setting at a time over a series, and you'll quickly get a feel for what you're doing.

Sam

 

[Muushka]

Thanks Sam, I understand what you are saying. I have always liked taking depth of field into account when taking pictures, but I never actually thought about the process until I read your post. Again, thank you for all of your photo experise, I appreciate it.

I probably will stick with the standard 50/1.8 (unless the 1.4 is not too much $$). I never got into the telephoto lenses too much. I am looking forward to the purchase of the digital SLR.

Barb

 

[ivanova]

question: should we hold onto our film 35mm SLR (Canon EOS, about 12 years old) once we get a digital SLR?

DH wants to sell the film SLR & all the lenses on eBay and put the $$$ towards the purchase of the digital SLR ... I guess I'm worried about "letting go"

 

[wdw47]

we just got a sony digital DSC-P92 camera with 5mp and a 3x optical zoom we are wondering do the airport x-ray machines hurt the digital memory chips and should we not use the digital zoom it also uses a memory stick. Mike

 

[MarkRG]

WDW47, the airport scanner should not affect your camera in any way if it is in your carryon luggage. Checked luggage is another mattter, don't trust any eletronics there, it goes thru a much stronger scanner including magnetic fields and such.

Ivanova, worried about letting go? I wouldn't. You won't miss it.

 

[smchan]

Originally posted by wdw47
we just got a sony digital DSC-P92 camera with 5mp and a 3x optical zoom we are wondering do the airport x-ray machines hurt the digital memory chips and should we not use the digital zoom it also uses a memory stick. Mike

I doubt the x-ray machine would hurt your memory stick. At least I didn't have any problems at the DCL port.

Using the digital zoom will reduce the quality of your photos, though I wouldn't hesitate to use it if it made the difference between getting the shot or not. You can also crop, of course.

Sam

 

[wdw47]

thanks everyone

 

[brack]

Originally posted by ivanova
question: should we hold onto our film 35mm SLR (Canon EOS, about 12 years old) once we get a digital SLR?

DH wants to sell the film SLR & all the lenses on eBay and put the $$$ towards the purchase of the digital SLR ... I guess I'm worried about "letting go"

I have a Canon EOS1 film camera that I love and do not see me getting rid of it even though the Digital Rebel is a great camera. I am doing a wedding for some friends and plan to take the Rebel but will really rely on the EOS1 for the main part of the shoot. Film still has its place

 

[brack]

Originally posted by Muushka

PS, just wondering, how do you find the 'depth of field' on the digital compared to the 35mm?

The Canon Digital Rebel has some "automatic" features and at least one has to do changing the depth of field for things like scenes and portraits.

 

[smchan]

Originally posted by brack
I have a Canon EOS1 film camera that I love and do not see me getting rid of it even though the Digital Rebel is a great camera. I am doing a wedding for some friends and plan to take the Rebel but will really rely on the EOS1 for the main part of the shoot. Film still has its place

I completely agree. If nothing else, 35mm SLR is still useful for wide angle shots that are impossible with a non full frame digital SLR.

I probably shoot 1 film photo for every 500 digital photos, but I still can't imagine giving up my film body - especially since it's compatible with the same lenses I use on my digital SLR.

Sam