Re: PAW: Father/son

[Paul Stenquist]

I agree, nice shot. I also think it might have benefited from less 
depth of field. Generally, the depth of field for any given lens and 
stop is the same on the *ist D as it would be on a 35mm film camera. 
However, the field of view is different. Thus, a lens on the *ist D 
that gives you field of view equivalent to a 50mm lens on a 35mm film 
camera will give you the depth of field of a 33 to 34mm lens. I don't 
find it to be much of a problem. With 1/4000 shutter speed I can 
usually get a wide enough stop to narrow the dof sufficiently. I just 
posted a PAW 
(http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2407739&size=lg) that I 
shot with the FA28-105/3.2-4.5 at about 45mm focal length. I definitely 
didn't want the messy background across the street to be sharp, so I 
shot at 5.6, which is close to wide open on that lens. If I had better 
glass on my camera, I would have opened up some more.
Paul
On Jun 1, 2004, at 1:09 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

I like that one, Bruce.  It catches a nice moment ;-))
One of the things I'm starting to notice with the pentax, and some 
other
DSLR's, is the excessive DOF that sometimes encroaches on what might
otherwise be an excellent or exceptional photograph.  I'm not 
specifically
criticizing your pic, and I'm not sure I'm even criticizing the way 
these
digi cameras work, especially with lenses that don't provide 
particularly
shallow DOF to begin with, however, it's an observation that your pic
motivated comment upon.  Personally, I'd have liked a little less 
sharpness
from the guy in the back, yet it doesn't always seem possible to 
control
the DOF on the shallow end with these cameras. I'd love to hear some
comments about this.

Shel Belinkoff

[Original Message]
From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Taken at a baseball game.  *istD, Tamron 28-75/2.8 DI.
Here's the link:
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/imgp5903.htm
Bruce