Limited aperture range of digital cams - drawbacks and consequences ?

[hemmerling]

Limited aperture range of digital cams - drawbacks and consequences ?

Hello,
from the analog world,
with my "Kodak Retina 1b", I am used to have an aperture range F=2.8...22,
while in standard outdoor conditions ( day, sunshine) , I usually use F=11..22,
with T=1/125 and have a great depth of sharpness.

No with digital cams, especially the compact bridge cams, I learn

Olympus SP-350, SP-5xx: F= F2.8 - F4.5

Fujifilm
S5600 = F3,2 - F8
S9600 = F2,8 - F11
S8000fd = F2.8- F8

So my favourite cam is still Olympus SP-550 ( I dream - with SDHC card slot ), but this has a very very limited depth of sharpness.

I had Fujifilm and Olympus cams in my hand, and as they are not SLR cams,

its from my point of view especially outdoors impossible to check sharpness by the LCD display, as it is useless anyhow in sunlight operation,

and with the viewfinder which is a must for outdoor photography,
it works, but just so "lala.." (not really perfect).

So how to get "sharp" pictures with these digital cams,
I prefer to photograph landscapes - which are always sharp with my "Kodak Retina 1b" ?

How does the optical stabilisator of the SP-550 ( and S8000fd ) and its competitor HELP to get sharp pictures,

and are the entry-models without such optical stabilisator (SP-350,SP-500, S5600/5700/5800/9600) acceptable ?

From all pictures of tests with digital cams (here on this site ), there were always impressive pictures how an optical stabilisator can improve the picture quality ( readability of text on the pictures ).

What are your experiences ?

Sincerely
Rolf

[Rooz]

Fujifilm
S5600 = F3,2 - F8
S9600 = F2,8 - F11
S8000fd = F2.8- F8

So my favourite cam is still Olympus SP-550 ( I dream - with SDHC card slot ), but this has a very very limited depth of sharpness.

due to their much smaller size the aperture of compacts is not the equivalent in absolute terms to an SLR's aperture.

i can;t remember the exact figures but an aperture of f4 on a compact is more like f11 on an slr and f8 is i think f22. so the DOF and range of sharpness if you like of a compact is actually much more than an slr. conversley, they cannot isolate the subject as well becasue they don;t have the same wider apertures. ie: f2.8 is actually more like f8.

i'm sure someone can give you the more technical reasons and formulas for how this works.

[coldrain]

You can not compare f-numbers from compact digital cameras to 35mm film cameras like your ancient Retina IIB.

The sensors used in compact digital cameras are VERY small compared to full frame 35mm DSLRs or APS-C sensor sized DSLRs.

Depth of field is not a function of the f-number, but rather a function of the size of the hole in the lens (aperture), focal length of the lens and size of the imaging surface (film/sensor).

With a small sensor, the focal lenght needs to be multiplied with the crop factor of the sensor to understand what the focal length equivalent would be on the 35mm film (135 standard) camera.

Lets look at the SP-550 for a moment.
It has a 35mm equivalent focal range of 28-504mm.

But look at how tiny the lens actually is...
The real focal length is printed on the lens barrel:
4.7-84.2mm

28 / 4.7 = 5.957
504 / 84.2 = 5.986

So... the SP-550 actually has a 6x crop sensor... meaning that the width of the sensor is 6 times as small as the width of a 35mm photo film frame.

You may or may not know that the depth of field of a wide angle lens is MUCH bigger than the depth of field of a tele lens.
So... with the increase of focal length, the depth of field gets more shallow. And so, with the decrease of focal length, the depth of field gets bigger.

The f-value is not a value for depth of field, but rather a value of how much light reaches the sensor. The f-value is actually 1/2.8 with f2.8
It is calculated like this:
Aperture / Focal length = f-value

So... with your 50mm lens of the Retina-B:

Aperture / 50 = 1 / 2.8
So... the size of the aperture = 50 / 2.8 = 17.8 mm wide.

At f22:
Aperture / 50 = 1 / 22
Size of the aperture = 50 / 22 = 2.2 mm wide

What about the size of the aperture of the SP-550 at 28mm equivalent for 35mm cameras?
The actual focal length is 4.7mm.
So at f2.8:
Aperture / 4.7 = 1 / 2.8
Size of the aperture: 4.7 / 2.8 = 1.7 mm

Lets suppose the maximum aperture of the SP-550 at 50mm equivalent is f3.5.
50mm / 6 = 8.3333 mm
Aperture / 8.3333333 = 1 / 3.5
Size of aperture: 8.33333 / 3.5 = 2.38 mm.

So.....
Wide open, the SP-550 at the 50mm equivalent has an opening of 2.38 mm wide.
Your Retina-B has an opening of 2.2 mm ar f22!!!

So in reality, the most shallow depth of field of the SP-550 is as deep as it is on your retina-b at f22!!!!

If you are looking for a big depth of field, every compact digital camera will give you a big depth of field. You just can not get a shallow depth of field, like that is possible with your Retina-II B and with DSLRs.
The Fuji sensors of the ones you list are a bit bigger than that of the Olympus, which means they wil provide a bit more shallow depth of field too.

By the way, I have a Kodak Retina IIc ;)

[hemmerling]

Thanks alot, dear experts,
so I was right to put the question here:p.

1)
But maybe depth of sharpness , and focussing the right object with a "point and shoot" approch of non-ambitious amateur photographs, is a weak point of non-SLR cams anyhow,
why if not that is the reason that now non-SLR cams introduce "face recognition" ( its not a gimmick from my point of view ) ?

So is in autofocus mode, with non-SLR digital cam ( or even with SLR cams ?)
getting the wrong focus a "problem" for certain tasks and environments ?

With my Kodak, I always take maximum depth of sharpness, from "infinite" to possible minimum distance ( e.g. 5 meters), depending on the light in the scene and so the aperture ( e.g. F=16 ).

From your experience, can a cam in autofocus mode easily focus on an object next to me ( lets say branches of a tree visible in the upper half of a landscape picture), while I want that the landscape is sharp ?
So do autofocus mechanisms in digital cams often lead to faulty sharpness, in outdoor use, photographing in towns and landscapes ?

And is there a difference between autofocus modes with SLR and non-SLR cams, concerning depth of sharpness ( so if not the user controlls the depth of sharpness by his/her eyes by the viewfinder ) ?

2)
From your point of view, as SLR owners,

is the electronic viewfinder of non-SLR bridge cams like Olympus SP-550 a major PLUS in comparison to the optical viewfinder of the non-SLR Olympus SP-350 ?

For outdoor use in bright sun, the LCD display is useless of ANY SLR or non-SLR cam, so I just "have" the viewfinder.

**

The form factor of my Kodak Retina 1b [not 2b] is genious, similar to the Olympus SP-550, both fold in their lense system for transportation - I can´t stand the size of SLR cams for my uses, to have a cam I am WILLING to take with me at any situation, especially with me when I am biking in our highlands.

Unfortunately, the even smaller SP-350 form size is discontinued by Olympus for the bridge cams. Really, I don´t need the "tele lense".

3)
In opposite, I was always interested in wide-angle operation.

There are wide-angle converters available for bridge cams like the Olympus SP-550 - as this cam folds OUT the lense system for use, there must be a long tube
http://www.olympus.de/digitalkamera/digitalkamera_cla-10_5589.htm
between the converter and the cam, making it as bulky as a true SLR cam :-(.

What are your experiences with wide-angle converter ( x0.7) and even fish-eye converters with digital cams ?

Is it reasonable to deassemble the tube with the wide-angle converter, again and again, during a holiday when I take photos ?! I am not shure... ( I am unused to changing lense systems, as I never had an analog SLR cam ).

4)
The bridge cams like Olympus SP-550 or Fujifilm S8000ffd always fold out their lense system when power is turned on,
so this is done 10.000 or even 100.000 times in the life of a cam,
in opposite Fujifilm S5700 / S5800 do not fold out, but are as small during operation as for transportation.
So the size of a Fuji S5800 is the same as that of a Olympus SP-550 during transportation ( achived by a smaller tele-angle factor ).

Do you see that the life of an S5800 is much longer as there is less mechanical movement ?!
Doesn´t this also cost much battery power ?!

Unfortunately the S5800 does not have an "optical stabilisator". I am not shure if Fujfilm will introduce this for the successor models, as the S8000fd has the feature (but folds out the lense system ), and the bridge cams turn to get bigger and bigger due to more tele-angle / wide-angle factors. Whats your opinion ?

I don´t want bigger bridge cams, but I am not asked by the industry.

5)
How important from your point of view,
is the optical image stabilisator, for use with non-SLR digital cams ( or even digital SLR cams) ?

Sincerely
Rolf

[fionndruinne]

Uh, those are a lot of detailed questions; I'll stick to answering #1.

Face recognition is a gimmick; all it does is save a person the minimal effort of choosing an appropriate focus point and placing that over a person's face. Or would, if it worked.

Inaccurate autofocus is a major problem when it occurs; but it's just an area where one must develop some skill, in order to correctly make use of the autofocus feature. Digital cameras have multiple focus points, and usually (hopefully) easy access to switching amongst those points, and even then focus and recompose is sometimes required (more often with my D40, which only possesses three horizontal focus points, but I don't mind that much).

It all depends on where you place the autofocus point when framing and focusing. If the selected point is on that foliage in the corner, then it will indeed be sharp, and the town behind it will be blurred. But select another point, and the town will materialize with all its edges and details, as if by magic.:)

Many SLR and DSLR cameras have a button which, when pressed, gives you a view with the depth-of-field that will appear in the finished photo (this is called depth-of-field preview), but the rest of the time the aperture is set to maximum opening, in order to let in the most light and thus provide the best and brightest possible view through the viewfinder.

[coldrain]

It will not be hard to focus on a face with the center AF point of any digital camera, and then to recompose while not changing the focus anymore and taking the photo. That is the same with a DSLR just using the center point, and a digital compact camera.

What the DSLR will be able to do, and a digital compact camera not, is to actually give a SHALLOW depth of field. That really is the biggest different between DSLRs and compact digital cameras.

In case you do not know why shallow depth of field would be attractive to have, just think about the possibility to have your subject in focus, and teh back and fore ground to be out of focus. This will attract the attention to the subject, it will isolate the subject. And at times that can be a nice and powerful photographic tool.

Here is an example of shallow depth of field in a photo of mine:

[hemmerling]

Thanks for naming

depth-of-field preview
"Schärfenbereichsvorschau" ( german )

and the "depth-of-field preview button"

Best visualisation I found here:
http://www.photozone.de/3Technology/demos/DOFbutton.htm
http://www.photozone.de/3Technology/demos/depth.htm

2)
Well, it looks as if this is currently an exclusive feature of true DSLRs like

Olympus E-330
Nikon N70 ( but not N60 )

, not available with bridge cameras.

Interesting:
http://www.glaringnotebook.com/Default.asp?id=769
"The Olympus OM mount is unique - the depth-of-field (DOF) preview button is on the lens, not the body"

So its NOT a feature linked with DSLRs, but MIGHT become someday a feature of bridge cams too ( well.. technical possibility, not from marketing, which has to "reserve" some features for high-end cams ) ?!

2)
The info I found in the Internet was that many non-DSLR digital cams have "two" automatic modes, and the advise to use the "Program" mode which although its automatic, allows manual aperture ( sorry I lost the URL ), and so manual debth-of-field setting.

Sincerely
Rolf

[Rex914]

Many compact cameras allow you to control the shutter speed and aperture if they offer "manual controls." These modes are called Aperture Priority (av), Shutter Priority (tv), or Manual, which lets you control both parameters.

While these will give you control over the aperture, as coldrain already said, you are not going to get a shallow depth of field on a compact camera due to the small sensor size, if that is what you want.

- Jon

[hemmerling]

Thanks alot, folks.

Indeed as I never had a shallow depth with my Kodak Retina 1b,
probably its the least I need :p.

Btw, I heard rumours that there is something similar with digital cams,
the usual DV consumer cams with PAL/NTSC and 25/30 frames per second don´t offer "shallow depth",

but there are special "cinema" DV cams with 24 frames per second which offer by some mystery this "shallow depth" and are therefore useful for making "real" artist movies.

Sincerely
Rolf

[fionndruinne]

Indeed as I never had a shallow depth with my Kodak Retina 1b,
probably its the least I need .

I'd be inclined to disagree. When I upgraded from compact to DSLR, I noticed right away how much better my photographs looked with a shallower depth-of-field, in many situations.

[hemmerling]

Hmm, with my Kodak Retina 1b, I **may** have a shallower depth-of-field,
as I see clearly on my instrument,
from what distance to what distance the cam image will be sharp,
its just that I then must estimate the exact distance...

In practice I did not use it - I am just aware of it in case of indoor photos and bad light = then the distance to the object IS important.

Sincerely
Rolf

[Rooz]

Hmm, with my Kodak Retina 1b, I **may** have a shallower depth-of-field,
as I see clearly on my instrument,
from what distance to what distance the cam image will be sharp,
its just that I then must estimate the exact distance...

In practice I did not use it - I am just aware of it in case of indoor photos and bad light = then the distance to the object IS important.

Sincerely
Rolf

alot of people think only of a large aperture being useful for low light but shallow DOF is also, (imo, principally), used to isolate the subject from the background or to have a particular part of your subject in focus as the main focal point and to draw the eye into the shot while the rest of the frame blurs nicely. coldy's photo is a great example of that, as are portrait shots.

having the ability to do this is one of the main reasons people invest in a dslr to begin with. to say you never used it probably means that you didn;t know how to use it or the camera was not capable of it.

you can pretty much forget the old distance scales in modern dslr. while they are certianly handy and even necesary in some situations, they are not used nearly as much in a manual sense with todays lens' and camera's. alot of lens' are even coming out without the markings or distance scales on them. times have changed and distance scales are becoming a lost art. in only 12 months of shooting dslr, i've forgotten nearly everything i used to know about these older techniques.

in fact the only people i regularly see using distance to manually set aperture and focal points nowadays are sports photographers...and even then the newer bodies and lens are so fast and meter/ focus/ track objects so accurately that even alot of these sports guys are ditching the old techniques.

[JTL]

..and even then the newer bodies and lens are so fast and meter/ focus/ track objects so accurately that even alot of these sports guys are ditching the old techniques.This is certainly true as AF systems get better and better...but it's a sad day when they remove the distance markings. At the very least, as long as the lens indicates the hyperfocal point the OP can do what he needs do do by applying the hyperfocal focusing technique.

The definitive DOF page here (link is direct to the hyperfocal section of the site):

http://www.dofmaster.com/hyperfocal.html

While the mathematics behind it are interesting, a shooter really doesn't have to get into things like calculating the Circle of Confusion and things like that. A good chart and a little knowledge is all that necessary to insure front to back focus for landscape photography every time.

[hemmerling]

My problem is that the genious small **form factor** of my Kodak Retina with its lense fold mechanism
was so convincing for 20 years ( and another 30 years for my father, before ),

that I never wanted a SLR cam, personally,
and now the bridge cams with LCD viewfinder like Olympus SP-550 are about the same size, have now acceptable number of Megapixels, have optical stabilisation, almost all the gadgets of SLR cams (no DOF button, ok ),

but the DSLRs are still **bulky** and **expensive** as the SLRs before...

and the volume and size (and weight) is a definite argument whether I am willing to take a cam with me all the day...

Heavy SLRs and DSLRs - with tele angle lens systems - are modern "penis symbols" :-).

Sincerely
Rolf

[fionndruinne]

Have you handled a Nikon D40? Or an Olympus E-410? While I agree they're heavier than a SP-550, they're not a whole lot larger, and part of the weight is due to vastly better materials. Let's face it, most of the ultrazooms these days feel like they'd perish the first time they bumped a handrail.

And a direct comparison of a DSLR image to an ultrazoom image, especially at full resolution, will show you how much better the DSLR is at capturing an image with clarity and sharpness. Compact and ultrazoom cameras have such tiny sensors that ugly digital noise (much less attractive than film grain in most cases) shows up in almost every shot, except perhaps at the lowest ISO setting (which limits your shooting possibilities); while many new cameras employ aggressive noise reduction which leaves you with a blotchy, ugly photo.

I agree though that DSLRs are very expensive - where you might have purchased a good, feature-rich film SLR for $300, you're looking at $1000 for a comparable digital SLR. But they are powerful machines, these DSLRs.

[hemmerling]

Thanks alot for the comment,

indeed look at Ebay where people just buy their old digital cams because of the low resolution ( and they claim, just for selling: Megapixels do not count). The physical qualities of non-DSLR digital cams was ok for several years, already ( even 10x zoom was available with Olympus digital cams with 2 Megapixels).

So probably even a DSLR cam, but at least any non-DSLR bridge cam,
is outdated in a very few years, like computers. Although even the non-DSLR cams were very expensive, they are not even suitable as children's playtools - as any children nowadays gets a 10-megapixel digital cam, not a 1.5 or 2 megapixel cam.

IN opposite, good analog cams like my Kodak Retina 1b can last for 50 years, and there are many successful SLR cams which were sold for 10 or more years,
and it does not really matter if you have a SLR cam of 1980 or 1990 or 2000 ( besides - well if it has proprietary accumulators, THATs it :-( ),
the lense quality is not what matters to me.

So if I don´t make real money with photos ( I do not) why invest
1000$
2000$
if the same still very limited picture quality is possible with
300$,
especially from point of view in 5 years, backwards ?!

DSLR cams are no investment, as computers are not, too,
besides if they are used for business = making money, so NOT for private or amateur use ( amateu = a civil engineer or house vendor/broker who takes photos of houses, just to have a photo for customers ).

Sincerely
Rolf

[fionndruinne]

You do realize the vastly more convenient and less limited possibilities in editing and changing a digital image over film in the darkroom, right? While there are pure geniuses who work in darkrooms, the task just necessitates more time and effort than the click of a few buttons in a good photo editing program.

I mean, if your main point is to show the (perceived) impracticality of DSLR cameras, as it seems perhaps to be, then good work for the opinion. But we need to take into account the performance of said cameras in their reality, and take the whole "picture" into account; everything which goes into making a photograph. And yes, the DSLR landscape changes probably every year that passes, like computers, but that does not mean that a DSLR is not a fitting investment for several years of use. If you think $1000 is too expensive for something with a limited lifespan like that, that's your prerogative. Personally I do not see it so, and I do intend to make at least a little money with a DSLR.

Just like with a computer, it's a given that the thing will become outdated, the question always comes down to "do I want to use it now, in the period of time before it becomes outdated, or do I want to wait until the next step in technology is reached". In both computers and cameras, most of us choose the first choice... but then, it's all dictated by our supply of money (of course) - but that's why there are less expensive options, like my D40.

The thing is, though... my camera takes good pictures. Yes, in time cameras will take much better pictures, but does that mean that my camera will then take bad pictures? Not at all.

[hemmerling]

Thanks alot,
the one-and-only-reason that my family stayed for 50 years with the Kodak Retina 1b, was the combination
a) form factor ( the space of SLR's objective is missing, makes it slim and transportable in small handbags, a **go-with-or-go-witout-cam question**).
b) the manual setting of time and aperture ( this is if I see right ok with digital non-DSLR cams for advanced amateurs, like Olympus SP-550, often called bridge cams ).

Another aspect of camera's lifetime:
Some bridge cams have fold-in lense mechanisms ( Olympus SP-550, Fujifilm 8000fd), some even have 10x zoom WITHOUT external mechanical movement of a lense ( Fujifilm S5800 & S5700 ).

Especially the fold-in mechanism means that a motor is moving exernally visible parts again and again.

Do you agree with me, that external movable parts ( which even MUST be moved by a motor each time with power on ) , there is more chance for failure due to pollution and falling down, with such cams ?
So that a S5800 / S5700 should be prefered, if compared with S8000fd / SP-550 ?

I know all standard cams with manual settings have objectives with moveable parts, especially zoom objectives. But the fold-out mechanism of MOST modern digital cams looks so much more "breakable". Do you think so too ?!

Sincerely
Rolf