# [Wet Thumb Forum]-Depth of field and digital cameras



## MarcinB (Apr 16, 2004)

Check this out. I didn't realize this huge difference in depth of field between conventional and digital cameras before.

150L (40G) planted tank
click here for photo

[This message was edited by MarcinB on Tue August 26 2003 at 12:18 AM.]


----------



## MarcinB (Apr 16, 2004)

Check this out. I didn't realize this huge difference in depth of field between conventional and digital cameras before.

150L (40G) planted tank
click here for photo

[This message was edited by MarcinB on Tue August 26 2003 at 12:18 AM.]


----------



## Wasserpest (Jun 20, 2003)

The depth of field of digitals is amazing. After years of SLR photography I did the switch, and often you get foreground to background focused images that wouldn't be possible with reg 35mm cameras even if closing the lens down to f22.
On the other side, the autofocus mechanism on regular 35mm is much faster and more accurate than on digitals, so you still end up with many out-of-focus crappy images.
Now on the third hand, if you NEED shallow depth, like for portraits or to bring out a subject in front of a lousy background, the additional depth of field is something you don't want, and can't really do anything about it. But for macros it is wonderful.


----------



## gpodio (Feb 4, 2004)

Here's a perfect example of shallow depth of field. Great shot!

http://www.aquariumadvice.com/freshphoto.php

Giancarlo Podio


----------



## gsmollin (Feb 3, 2003)

Well you could always use an 8 mm film format. I think this difference will become less as the optical sensors grow in size. The Foveon sensor is already pretty big, and the CCDs are growing too, although they are really limited by power consumption. The pixelated, diffraction-limited digitals will be much more like film cameras in the future, with 100 Mpixel sensors on a 35 mm format.


----------

