I feel really dumb that I can't get my head around something that's probably obvious to everyone else.

I'm planning on traveling light on my trip to Europe in June, leaving my D700 and the big lenses at home. I'm going to bring my 12-24 mm and my D200 and my IR converted D70. I was also thinking of bringing my 50 mm 1.4. I can use that for any portrait or food photography I want to do. But I was thinking it might also be good in low light situations like churches, and for maybe some street stuff in the evenings.

Where I get myself confused is how the wide aperture will work when shooting things that are not close up like a portrait or detail photos (which is what I have always used it for). So if I am shooting a larger scene at 1.4 won't the DOF field be so narrow the photo will be mostly out of focus? (I'm sitting here thinking I should just slap the lens on and go test what will happen but I really want to understand the concept as well.) What am I missing?

Read 341 times

Reply 

From baba/David (38,576) on March 2, 2012 11:03:27 AM CST Not sure I really understand the question. When shooting things had held, I usually adjust the ISO and aperture to get me a shutter speed where I won't be concerned about camera motion or motion of the subject, if I want everything to be still. Also remember that the depth of field is dependent on the distance that the subject is from the plane of the sensor. So, the farther away the subject is, the wider the depth of field and more of the photo will be in sharper focus. You can probably find an app to calculate the DOF and the hyperfocal focusing distance for your smart phone to help. Reply

From sheenawilkie/Administrator (0) on March 2, 2012 12:10:13 PM CST Thanks David. See my reply to Marshall. Reply

From marshall/Marshall (11,954) on March 2, 2012 11:18:28 AM CST David's got the right of it: the apparent DOF is related to the distance you are from whatever you've focused on. One of the calculators is here. That said, even focused further out, if you shoot at 1.4 your DOF will be quite narrow. Also, unless you really need the wide aperture for light or because you want that short DOF, even the excellent 50/1.4 performs better stopped down a couple clicks. Also, "mostly out of focus" is very much a function of compositional choices. If the subject is separated from the background and foreground by a lot, then yes. This is stuff you know intuitively, though, but going out and playing with it will reinforce what you know and inform your thinking when you travel. I don't think I'd have it in me to go on a trip like that with two lenses, but I wish I did... Reply

From sheenawilkie/Administrator (0) on March 2, 2012 12:13:27 PM CST Ok that's the issue I was struggling with, it's the distance from the subject. And hyper focal distance, oh gawd. My head hurts just looking at the chart. I think I have to take a chart outside and actually do it to make it make sense to me. Sorry I'm so dense in this area :( Reply

From marshall/Marshall (11,954) on March 2, 2012 12:21:13 PM CST You're less dense than you think. It's the jargon and a little bit of the physics that probably just doesn't seem as interesting. Just think of it this way: if you were actually seeking a photo with the greatest subject/background separation and the shallowest possible DOF, you would: 1) use a long lens and a wide aperture; 2) get the subject as far as possible from anything else in the background or foreground; and 3) (this is the one people don't think about as much) get the subject as close to the lens as you can. Obviously, part 3 is driven by your composition. If you want a full-body shot, then you have to get the full body in. Anyway, the point of that is that we kinda intuitively know that stuff. The opposite also holds. If you want to avoid losing focus and detail, you 1) use a wide lens at a narrow aperture; 2) get the stuff as close together as you can; and 3) don't let the subject be too close to the lens (hello, trying to focus shooting macro!). Or, you can practice, then trust your intuition and take the pictures you see in front of you. Or something like that. but now I'm just ranting... Reply

From sheenawilkie/Administrator (0) on March 2, 2012 12:35:41 PM CST Good advice! Yes I am going to practice it with the 50 mm to make sure I can get what I think I can. And I want to see how wide open I can shoot before it goes all syrupy on me. As for the two lenses I simply won't drag around all the equipment like I did last time. It really made a lot of my trip not fun and I used my wide mostly in the end anyway. With those two lenses I can do close ups, landscapes, and portraits. My telephoto doesn't have that long of a reach anyway and it's like a bloody boat anchor when traveling. Nope, I'm going light and I know I won't regret it. Now to figure out how to store photos without bringing a laptop along :-) Reply

From stmv/Sebastian (59,820) on March 2, 2012 3:05:55 PM CST I am somewhat surprised that you would take the D200 over the D700, the D700 really is not that much heavier, and when you consider the low light (for inside churches) and the night time superiority for low noise, I think you should reconsider camera choice. On the aperature, at 20 feet, 1.4 on a 50 mm for a D200, the it is about .35 feet front and back, and that is really shallow, unless you are doing nature shots, or maybe some people shots where you want the background shallow. Also consider that the 50mm 1.4 is fairly soft wide open, and really is not razor sharp until closed down some, and than outside, it would most likely be just too bright anyway for that much open. Here is another dof calculator that works well http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html are you wanting the D200/50mm to have a 85 portrait lens? versus taking a D700 with an 85 mm (1.8). I just know that if I was going all the way over to Europe, it would be the D700 over the D200, with a set of light prime lens. with a couple of zooms for those days when moving with the feet or changing lens would be a pain. Reply

From marshall/Marshall (11,954) on March 2, 2012 4:38:23 PM CST Agreed that the D700 is better for many purposes than the D200. However, if Sheena's trying to travel light and does want to do some work with the IR-converted D70, using the 200 instead of the 700 lets her share the wide lens between bodies. Reply

From stmv/Sebastian (59,820) on March 2, 2012 5:22:56 PM CST yes, the 12-24 must be a DX lens, which makes sense for traveling light. Gear.. trade_offs, Trade_offs, I know I have been carrying my D7000 around with some lightweight DX lens lately for the same reason. Reply

From sheenawilkie/Administrator (0) on March 3, 2012 12:34:51 AM CST Yep the wide is a DX so I lose a lot on the D700 so the benefits of the D700 aren't as great and it's heavier, so I decided to go with the D200 :-) Reply

From karin2007/Karin (19,610) on March 2, 2012 12:01:39 PM CST This DOF calculator is real good and will probably answer your question Reply

From sheenawilkie/Administrator (0) on March 2, 2012 12:14:09 PM CST Thanks Karin, I am going to have to go out in the field with the chart and my camera and work this out so I can see it. Cheers. Reply

From rmullns/Robert (3,078) on March 2, 2012 6:29:51 PM CST Just put the camera on "A" for awesome and stop your worrying. Reply

From stmv/Sebastian (59,820) on March 2, 2012 9:09:11 PM CST ah,, so that's the secret. Reply

From robertwallis/Robert (12,897) on March 2, 2012 11:10:09 PM CST Nah, put it on "P" for Perfect ;-) Reply

From bwfilmuser/Barry (9,317) on March 3, 2012 9:38:50 AM CST I thought it was "A" for "Amateur" and "P" for "Professional". Reply

From robertwallis/Robert (12,897) on March 3, 2012 11:31:00 AM CST Don't forget "M" for "Magnificent"! Reply

From loiswakeman/Lois (16,444) on March 5, 2012 2:38:21 AM CST What's "S" for - sucker? Reply

From sheenawilkie/Administrator (0) on March 3, 2012 12:35:25 AM CST Thanks guys! Reply

From jroessler/John (14,200) on March 3, 2012 9:34:20 AM CST I love esoteric humor - one of the big draws at Psig. Reply

From robertwallis/Robert (12,897) on March 3, 2012 11:32:28 AM CST Hey, we aim to please around here ;-) Reply

From leren/Luc (32,430) on March 3, 2012 9:41:39 AM CST I understand travelling 'light', i.e. not heavy, is key here. An approach that was not mentioned was to carry your own light... many options, though not all light. Another approach is to make use of whatever support to fix your camera, or bring your own superlight, inflatable or whatever tripod and use 'time' getting stops down, increasing DOF and stuff. Thinking of churches over here... in most places you simply won't reach deep enough to distinguish much. So, if you're into 'detail', some kind of zoom -and 24mm is not nearly enough to reach ceiling or altar detail- will come in handy. Perhaps a point&shooter could cover that range. I guess the tripod will have to travel in your suitcase. Reply

From sheenawilkie/Administrator (0) on March 3, 2012 10:04:35 AM CST Thanks Luc, not bringing the tripod or the monopod. Been there, done that, remember how infrequently it was used and how heavy and awkward it was to lug around :-) I am going to try the trick with the string tripod. I have a Lumix GF2 but I'm not going to bring that either. I'm really determined to pare down and work with the wide and the 50. I'll let you know how I make out! :-) Reply

Return to forum