Can we take Shallow Depth Photos with 1/2.3’’ Sensor Camera?

[Lijo]

Consider a camera with 1/2.3’’ Sensor.

Example Specification http://www.digicamdb.com/specs/canon...shot-sx160-is/
F/3.5-5.9, MegaPixel – 16MP, Aperture Priority - Yes

Can we take Shallow Depth pictures like the one below?
http://cdn.cambridgeincolour.com/ima...askrecki1b.jpg
http://www.clickinmoms.com/blog/wp-c.../02/image1.jpg
http://www.handmadeinpa.net/wp-conte...ue-550x365.jpg


If that is not possible, what will be the best possible shallow depth photo that can be taken with 1/2.3’’ Sensor? Can you please provide some examples with 1/2.3’’ Sensor?

[Steve S]

Consider a camera with 1/2.3’’ Sensor.

Example Specification http://www.digicamdb.com/specs/canon...shot-sx160-is/
F/3.5-5.9, MegaPixel – 16MP, Aperture Priority - Yes

Can we take Shallow Depth pictures like the one below?
http://cdn.cambridgeincolour.com/ima...askrecki1b.jpg
http://www.clickinmoms.com/blog/wp-c.../02/image1.jpg
http://www.handmadeinpa.net/wp-conte...ue-550x365.jpg


If that is not possible, what will be the best possible shallow depth photo that can be taken with 1/2.3’’ Sensor? Can you please provide some examples with 1/2.3’’ Sensor?

To get as shallow a depth of field as possible, shoot as wide open as you can, the most focal length you can, and get as close as you can, to your subject.

[Manfred M]

Nicely said, no. Cameras with 1/2.3 (6.17mm x 4.55mm) and a crop factor of 5.64. These cameras tend to have fairly slow built in lenses, so getting a nice tight DoF is not going to happen.

[dje]

Consider a camera with 1/2.3’’ Sensor.

Example Specification http://www.digicamdb.com/specs/canon...shot-sx160-is/
F/3.5-5.9, MegaPixel – 16MP, Aperture Priority - Yes

Can we take Shallow Depth pictures like the one below?
http://cdn.cambridgeincolour.com/ima...askrecki1b.jpg
http://www.clickinmoms.com/blog/wp-c.../02/image1.jpg
http://www.handmadeinpa.net/wp-conte...ue-550x365.jpg


If that is not possible, what will be the best possible shallow depth photo that can be taken with 1/2.3’’ Sensor? Can you please provide some examples with 1/2.3’’ Sensor?

Small sensor cameras are not very effective for getting shallow DOF. Have a look at the DOF calculator here and put some numbers in. The largest aperture you can get with the SX160 is f/3.5 at a focal length of 5mm. You'll only approach shallow DOF for macros.

Here are a few shots I just took with my Nikon P300 which has a 1/2.3" sensor. The books in the back wall are about 2m behind the subject (big bird)


f/1.8, subject distance 1m, f=4.3mm


f/3.5 subject distance 1m , f=4.3mm


f/1.8 subject distance about 150mm , f=4.3mm


f/3.5 subject distance about 150mm , f=4.3mm


Dave

PS I think there's a bit of hand shake on the shots with aperture set to f/3.5 as the shutter speed was 1/13 sec.

[inkista]

Shallow depth of field is hard with a 1/2.3" sensor on anything but macro photos for a number of reasons.

The lenses are short, so you get more DoF because of that (the small sensor size, and crop factor means that what is an "24-500" equiv. lens is really more like a 5-100mm lens.

The lenses are typically 2.8 or slower lenses, particularly as you zoom in. Smaller aperture gives you more DoF.

But the thing most P&S shooters can't quite seem to grasp is that this is a feature not a bug. That blurry background? It's blurry because it's out of focus. Focusing with a very deep DoF, as a P&S camera gives, is nearly trivial. Most folks who buy a small camera to take snapshots would prefer not to get their images out of focus. So, the deep DoF is a good thing for them.

Learn to use a 1/2.3" format camera at its strengths, not belabor its weaknesses. If you want shallow DoF, maybe faking it in post-processing is the way to do it. That's what all those phony tilt-shift photos do. Learn about making depth maps or buy fancy software that makes them for you.

[jcuknz]

As th enthusiastic user of bridge cameras in preference to the DSLR or SLR I came up with one idea. Basically one has to use lateral thinking to trick the automatics into giving you the result you want. In the case of focusing one works out the depth of field one has when adding a close-up lens and placing the subject at the far end of the DoF. Since there is nothing closer to the camera you cannot see it is in focus but what is behind the subject is soft .... you have achieved minimal Do0F in effect.

I am afraid this is just one of my brain storming ideas and I have not bothered to put it into practice but this armchair photographer thinks it would work ... it is logical

Using the CiC Calculator with a 1/2.3 sensor at f/5.6 a 9mm lens with a one dioptre CU lens the answer is Near 0.72m Far 1.64 so with the back of somebody's head at 1.64m you could blur the background. You would also not have any problems with one eye sharp and the other not, sorry that is a dig at the DSLR user with their f/1.4 lens trying to blur the background I wouldn't be suprised if AF had pups trying to achieve focus

[inkista]

One other possibility to try and limit the DoF with a small sensored camera is the "Brenizer method". You use a longer focal length (i.e., zoom in) shoot from closer in (both of which will give you a thinner DoF), fire off a matrix of images, and then panostitch them together. This will get you a truly thinner depth of field (and bonus! higher resolution), but is a lot more work than snapping a single frame.