Digital Rebel Disappointment

This is the last time I'll post about my absolute underwhelm-ment with
the 400D. I thought I'd think I died and went to heaven with this
camera. I've taken your comments about my "BUSY" problem and believe
I've gotten a handle on it, but I just feel so disappointed with this
item.

Last question: Am I incorrect in thinking that the 18-55mm lens gives
*less* depth of field than my beloved PowerShot A620? Do I have to buy
another $500 lens in order to get precise photographs (I mean without
suturing a tripod to my arm)?

Last question. Thanks.

wrote:

Last question: Am I incorrect in thinking that the 18-55mm lens gives
*less* depth of field than my beloved PowerShot A620?

Yes, you are incorrect. Stop down to f/8 or f/11 (or even f/16, although you
may find the images a tad soft at f/16) (and use the wide end of the zoom)
and you'll have lots of DOF. Increase the ISO if you need a faster shutter
speed.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

wrote:
This is the last time I'll post about my absolute underwhelm-ment with
the 400D. I thought I'd think I died and went to heaven with this
camera. I've taken your comments about my "BUSY" problem and believe
I've gotten a handle on it, but I just feel so disappointed with this
item.

Last question: Am I incorrect in thinking that the 18-55mm lens gives
*less* depth of field than my beloved PowerShot A620? Do I have to
buy another $500 lens in order to get precise photographs (I mean
without suturing a tripod to my arm)?

Last question. Thanks.

Depth of field is determined by the aperture chosen and the focal length
of the lens. Since you (or the camera) can change the focal length and both
the A620 and the 400D with the 18-55 have zoom lenses on them, it is not
possible to answer your question.

Other things also enter into your underlying question about how to get
sufficient DOF for your needs. The answer, in reality has far more to do
with the art of photography than the simple science. I suggest that neither
camera has a clear advantage in this issue. Your technical mastery and
artistic skills are far more important than the difference between the
cameras.

If you hare having a specific issue of DOF that you would like to be
considered, I am sure we can offer some specific suggestions that may help
you in the use of either camera.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

wrote in news:1165404694.183227.243530
@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

This is the last time I'll post about my absolute underwhelm-ment with
the 400D. I thought I'd think I died and went to heaven with this
camera. I've taken your comments about my "BUSY" problem and believe
I've gotten a handle on it, but I just feel so disappointed with this
item.

Last question: Am I incorrect in thinking that the 18-55mm lens gives
*less* depth of field than my beloved PowerShot A620? Do I have to buy
another $500 lens in order to get precise photographs (I mean without
suturing a tripod to my arm)?

Last question. Thanks.


It's a camera, not a magic wand. Have you tried a different lens?

On Dec 6, 6:31 am, wrote:
This is the last time I'll post about my absolute underwhelm-ment with
the 400D. I thought I'd think I died and went to heaven with this
camera. I've taken your comments about my "BUSY" problem and believe
I've gotten a handle on it, but I just feel so disappointed with this
item.

Last question: Am I incorrect in thinking that the 18-55mm lens gives
*less* depth of field than my beloved PowerShot A620? Do I have to buy
another $500 lens in order to get precise photographs (I mean without
suturing a tripod to my arm)?

Last question. Thanks.

Depth of field is dependent on magnification, what this means is that
the shorter focal length the lens is the higher the depth of field.
Because the A620 has a small sensor the focal lenth of the lens is very
short to get the acceptable angles of view people expect. I don't have
an A620 but I have a Nikon 995 on my desk, this camera has a lens that
is actually 8-32mm, in 35mm translation that is 36-150mm, but the depth
of field over most of the range is very great, it would be the same for
the A620 and other P&S cameras. So at the same apparent image size the
A620 will always have more depth of field than the Digital Rebel,
unless you drop the f-stop of the Digital Rebel down to f11, 16, or 22
(if your lens has f22). What you get with a DSLR is flexibility, the
ability to isolate subjects with little depth of field, or get great
depth of field in scenics. While you have to keep your A620 to ISO 100
- 200 to keep image quality, the Rebel will give you acceptable pics at
ISO 1600 or 3200. You have lens choices, in fact the 18-55 Canon is a
notoriously mediocre lens, you may want to try a better lens on the
camera, the 50mm f1.8 I heard was under $100. Learn how to use your
camera and you'll be happy with it, you may want to get a book on
digital photography to help you out.

Tom

Tony Rice wrote:
wrote in news:1165404694.183227.243530
@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

This is the last time I'll post about my absolute underwhelm-ment with
the 400D. I thought I'd think I died and went to heaven with this
camera. I've taken your comments about my "BUSY" problem and believe
I've gotten a handle on it, but I just feel so disappointed with this
item.

Last question: Am I incorrect in thinking that the 18-55mm lens gives
*less* depth of field than my beloved PowerShot A620? Do I have to buy
another $500 lens in order to get precise photographs (I mean without
suturing a tripod to my arm)?

Last question. Thanks.


It's a camera, not a magic wand. Have you tried a different lens?

18mm is pretty wide ... he should have sufficient DOF capability with that
lens. I suspect he needs to learn more about the technical aspect of
photography and, in particular, the use of his new Rebel to be able to get
what he is after.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0

wrote in message
ups.com...
This is the last time I'll post about my absolute underwhelm-ment with
the 400D. I thought I'd think I died and went to heaven with this
camera. I've taken your comments about my "BUSY" problem and believe
I've gotten a handle on it, but I just feel so disappointed with this
item.

Last question: Am I incorrect in thinking that the 18-55mm lens gives
*less* depth of field than my beloved PowerShot A620? Do I have to buy
another $500 lens in order to get precise photographs (I mean without
suturing a tripod to my arm)?

At the same angle of view, the A620 will have more depth of field due to a
much shorter focal length of the lens. Not your imagination.


Last question. Thanks.

Kinon O'Cann wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
This is the last time I'll post about my absolute underwhelm-ment with
the 400D. I thought I'd think I died and went to heaven with this
camera. I've taken your comments about my "BUSY" problem and believe
I've gotten a handle on it, but I just feel so disappointed with this
item.

Last question: Am I incorrect in thinking that the 18-55mm lens gives
*less* depth of field than my beloved PowerShot A620? Do I have to buy
another $500 lens in order to get precise photographs (I mean without
suturing a tripod to my arm)?

At the same angle of view, the A620 will have more depth of field due to a
much shorter focal length of the lens. Not your imagination.


Well, only if you also use the same f-stop. As David Littleboy pointed
out, closing the aperture down will increase DOF to match the
smaller-sensor camera. And increasing ISO at the same time and by the
same amount will result in the same shutter speed and same noise.

There was a long and tedious thread about this here some time ago.

Kinon O'Cann wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
This is the last time I'll post about my absolute underwhelm-ment with
the 400D. I thought I'd think I died and went to heaven with this
camera. I've taken your comments about my "BUSY" problem and believe
I've gotten a handle on it, but I just feel so disappointed with this
item.

Last question: Am I incorrect in thinking that the 18-55mm lens gives
*less* depth of field than my beloved PowerShot A620? Do I have to buy
another $500 lens in order to get precise photographs (I mean without
suturing a tripod to my arm)?

At the same angle of view, the A620 will have more depth of field due to a
much shorter focal length of the lens. Not your imagination.


Last question. Thanks.


I have always thought that if one expects that a proper digital SLR is
going to necessarily give you pictures with less fuss than a
point-and-shoot digital, then they are probably going to be
disappointed. Many of the posters above are right - there is art and
science involved. Will a digital SLR give you a better picture?
Absolutely. Will you get that better picture with less work, less
effort (including the learning time)? Often not. But learning and
practice will be rewarded.

"Kinon O'Cann" wrote:
wrote:

This is the last time I'll post about my absolute underwhelm-ment with
the 400D. I thought I'd think I died and went to heaven with this
camera. I've taken your comments about my "BUSY" problem and believe
I've gotten a handle on it, but I just feel so disappointed with this
item.

Last question: Am I incorrect in thinking that the 18-55mm lens gives
*less* depth of field than my beloved PowerShot A620? Do I have to buy
another $500 lens in order to get precise photographs (I mean without
suturing a tripod to my arm)?

At the same angle of view, the A620 will have more depth of field due to a
much shorter focal length of the lens. Not your imagination.

We've been through this before here recently, but...

(1) DOF increases as you stop down the lens. (Yes, I know you know that.)
(2) Diffraction limits sharpness if you stop down too much. (Yes, I know you
know that, too.)

But that means that if you have a sharpness requirement, then any camera has
a maximum DOF.

Are we OK so far?

Here's the punch line: that means that for cameras of the same pixel count,
_regardless of the format_, the maximum DOF is the same.

So the laws of optics and physics make it impossible for the A620 to have
"more DOF".

http://clarkvision.com/photoinfo/dof_myth/index.html

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan