From: nm5k on
On Jan 15, 5:13 pm, Peabody <waybackNO746SPA...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ok, I can duplicate the background blur if I get really close up,
> like one foot from the subject.  But you can't always do that, or
> anything close to that, for larger objects, even a simple head shot.
>
> I would just like to be able to get that background blur under a
> wider variety of shooting conditions, and my understanding is that
> that requires longer focal lengths than those found in P&S cameras.

It would as the subjects get farther away. IE: if the subject was 30
feet away, you would need a pretty long telephoto along with the
large aperture to get that effect. With the shorter lengths with the
usual P&S, you have to keep the subject fairly close to get a shallow
DOF.
The longer the telephoto, I would think the farther away the subject
could be assuming an equal aperture setting.
But I'm no expert on this stuff.. Basically a beginner too as far as
the more advanced techniques. So I'm trying to absorb this stuff
as I go along myself.
Here is one page I ran across a while back that seemed to have
some fairly good tips about depth of field.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/fototech/htmls/depth.html
From: Savageduck on
On 2010-01-15 15:13:06 -0800, Peabody <waybackNO746SPAM44(a)yahoo.com> said:

> Ok, I can duplicate the background blur if I get really close up,
> like one foot from the subject. But you can't always do that, or
> anything close to that, for larger objects, even a simple head shot.
>
> I would just like to be able to get that background blur under a
> wider variety of shooting conditions, and my understanding is that
> that requires longer focal lengths than those found in P&S cameras.

Tamron has an on-line DOF comparison which demonstrates the effect for
different focal lengths/aperture/focus distance very well.
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/learning_center/tools/depth-of-field-comparison.php


--


Regards,

Savageduck

From: Robert Coe on
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 23:05:28 -0600, Peabody <waybackNO784SPAM44(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
: As a hobby, I mean.
:
: I've been doing stuff with a Canon A590IS for a year now, but have
: been thinking about getting into photography more seriously -
: getting a nice camera, etc. My total investment in the A590 setup
: is around $150, including the camera, batteries, charger, SD cards,
: and card reader, and that's using a cheap, wobly tripod I bought
: years ago that really isn't much good.
:
: But serious photography seems to be a really expensive hobby, and I
: would be operating under a limited budget. So I was trying to make
: a list of the things I would need, and would appreciate help putting
: specific numbers on some of these things. Here's my list so far:
:
: Canon XSi with 18-55mm IS kit lens - $560
: 50mm 1.8 lens - $100
: other lenses
: filters
: lens hood
: extra battery
: SD cards
: camera bag
: tripod
: off-camera flash, lights, other lighting equipment
: software - raw processing and general editing
: software - HDR, pano
: books?
:
: I guess one way to keep the cost down would be to just fart off the
: entire flash/lighting category, and stick with available light.
:
: Also, there's the issue of software. Everybody talks about
: Photoshop, but I wonder if there might be freeware that would let me
: process raw images well enough and do the occasional HDR or pano
: pic.
:
: If it matters, I probably wouldn't be doing weddings, wildlife, or
: sports, but pretty much anything else.
:
: Well, I'd appreciate help on filling in what things are likely to
: cost, and what things I need to add. Kinda hoping to stay under
: $1000, but that may be unrealistic if I have to buy software.

You've already gotten 35 responses, which I ought to read before jumping in,
but I'm too lazy.

Staying under $1000 will be difficult for what you want to do, but you don't
have to buy software. There is quite a bit of pretty good freeware out there;
and if you buy even a low-end Canon DSLR, it will include a very acceptable
photo editor. You may reach a level at which you start to feel the need for
Photoshop or a similar professional-level editor, but you can cross that
bridge when you come to it.

Bob
From: Matt Ion on
On 13/01/2010 9:33 PM, BD wrote:

> Software - check out GIMP. It won't open the RAW files from the camera
> by default, but you should be able to dig up some mechanism for
> converting to TIF and then opening in GIMP.

Any camera that does RAW should come with software to open and convert
the RAW files.

From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on
Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Indeed. I am happy to drop autofocus for bargain sharp large lenses.
> Autofocus can be worth turning off on some of the long lenses that have
> it to save battery and avoid the damn thing spontaneously focussing on
> foreground foliage that blows across the field of view just when
> something interesting happens in the far distance.

Just separate the AF from the shutter button and immediately
you decide when and how to trigger the AF.

And if foreground foliage often blows across your field of view,
you might consider getting further away from the tornado.

-Wolfgang