Depth perception in photos and camera types

[FLok]

Hi!

A question to you all regarding depth perception in photos and camera types.
Is it me or a $700 DSLR has a better depth perception that a $900 Mirrorless camera?

Thanks

[chauncey]

You might want to clearly define your definition of depth perception...are you referring purely to
depth of field or, are you talking about quality of that out of focus area, commonly called bokeh.

[george013]

Hi!

A question to you all regarding depth perception in photos and camera types.
Is it me or a $700 DSLR has a better depth perception that a $900 Mirrorless camera?

Thanks

Any camera is producing a 2 dimensional image. Suggesting a 3th dimension, perspective, can be done in many ways.

George

[Inkanyezi]

Depth perception is not related to the price of the equipment.

There are a few different ways to perceive depth, and perhaps you are chasing the depth perceived by background blur, bokeh.

Whether the camera has a flapping mirror or not is irrelevant; bokeh is a matter of the size of the entrance pupil of the lens, the distance to the subject and the relative distance to the background. In general, the longer the focal length and larger the diameter of the entrance pupil, there will be more bokeh. Generally, a larger size sensor will need a longer focal length, and a longer lens will display more bokeh. Thus the larger the sensor size, the more bokeh is possible.

A larger sensor also is far more expensive than a small one, and there are also large entrance pupil lenses for medium size sensors. So a more economic way would be getting a camera with APS-C size sensor. There are several wide aperture lenses for all of those cameras, and a few of them are rather cheap, as the 50 mm f/1.8 lenses for Canon or Nikon.

There are also other ways to perceive depth, by perspective, or by background haze for example, but my assumption was that you might mean background blur.

[Manfred M]

As a general rule, a wide angle lens is going to accentuate depth in an image and a long lens will tend to flatten it, so other than effective focal length, this will be consistent across any camera type (accounting for crop factor, of course). A larger sensor is going to give you a shallower depth of field than a smaller sensor; but when one looks at a crop sensor (APS-C) versus an mFT sensor, you are looking at less than a stop of difference

[Shadowman]

As a general rule, a wide angle lens is going to accentuate depth in an image and a long lens will tend to flatten it, so other than effective focal length, this will be consistent across any camera type (accounting for crop factor, of course). A larger sensor is going to give you a shallower depth of field than a smaller sensor; but when one looks at a crop sensor versus an APS-C sensor, you are looking at less than a stop of difference

To me, that's the only thing missing with mirrorless, you don't get the distortion associated with a wide angle lens; or should I say UWA lens. I can get the wide angle effect with my 14-42mm lens and I can accentuate the effect when shooting in 16:9 ratio. I understand there are specifically designed lens that will give you the UWA effect.

[Mike Buckley]

when one looks at a crop sensor versus an APS-C sensor

I think you meant a full frame sensor versus an APS-C censor, as an APS-C censor is a crop sensor.

[chauncey]

IMHO the quality of that background blur (bokeh) is a telling asset, in that not all lenses are
created equal. Basically the more blades in that lens and the longer that lens (read more expensive),
the better the bokeh. http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/02/11/what-is-bokeh/

[xpatUSA]

Hi!

A question to you all regarding depth perception in photos and camera types.
Is it me or a $700 DSLR has a better depth perception that a $900 Mirrorless camera?

Thanks

Not sure what is meant by "perception" in the OP, but we discussed a lot how to get an impression of depth here:

Impression of Depth and how to get it?

As to cameras, Sigmas with Foveon sensor are said to be 'better' for the "3D" look than ordinary cameras with Bayer pattern.

See here for why that is so:

http://kronometric.org/phot/sensor/f...FinalHiRes.pdf

The 15MP Sigma DP1M or DP2M have serious acutance but are not really for beginners.

This shot was from a 4.7MP Sigma SD14 and shows a bit of "depth" in the tree which in turn stands out quite well from the background, with no bokeh involved:



This was a "full spectrum" (visual + UV + IR) shot rendered as a raw composite and processed to a) mess with the colors and b) sharpened and local contrasted quite a bit.

[FLok]

Thanks, but I think is something else that "depth of field", or the "bokeh".
I'm referring to a simple photo without a specific focus.
A landscape might be a good example of depth perception between the several "things" that are in frame.
Depth perception for me is when objects aren't glued in a photo, like most of the point and shoot cameras.
But I've haven't seen photos from a Mirrorless that aren't also compositions of glued objects.
I leave a "drawing" of what I'm trying to say,

[george013]

Thanks, but I think is something else that "depth of field", or the "bokeh".
I'm referring to a simple photo without a specific focus.
A landscape might be a good example of depth perception between the several "things" that are in frame.
Depth perception for me is when objects aren't glued in a photo, like most of the point and shoot cameras.
But I've haven't seen photos from a Mirrorless that aren't also compositions of glued objects.
I leave a "drawing" of what I'm trying to say,

From what I see is that the right object is drawn from a closer distance. Left is from a longer distance. To make them both fill the sensor, the left one is taken with a longer focus. Is that what you mean?
George

[jcuknz]

This discussion seems to be mainly stating the obvious characteristics of long and short lenses but after going to a modern 3D movie I am left with the feeling that the best ' depth shots' were the compositions that good photographers have been using for decades in the 2D medium. Fortunately I only spent $1 on my polarized glasses for the show because they have remained un-used for at least a couple of years now.

So depending on the skill of the photographer there will be little difference or none between the cameras assuming both are fitted with similar lens for comparison. [ ie 100mm on a full frame and 50mm on MFT. Each being used at the appropriate aperture to equalise depth of field ]

Apples with Apples etc

[xpatUSA]

Thanks, but I think is something else that "depth of field", or the "bokeh".
I'm referring to a simple photo without a specific focus.

Are you perhaps talking about "perspective" which can be more exaggerated with a smaller mirror-less camera because they tend to have smaller focal-length lenses?

A landscape might be a good example of depth perception between the several "things" that are in frame.
Depth perception for me is when objects aren't glued in a photo, like most of the point and shoot cameras.
But I've haven't seen photos from a Mirrorless that aren't also compositions of glued objects.
I leave a "drawing" of what I'm trying to say,

Unfortunately, the drawings are orthographic (?) projections with no perspective at all. That makes it difficult to understand your point, sorry.

[Inkanyezi]

I think I am getting the point, and I surely did misinterpret it first.

What you are looking for seems to be perspective, even though your drawings do not convey perspective, as they are isometric.

Still, there is no such difference between mirrorless or DSLR cameras. You can use just any kind of camera to convey perspective; in fact, you cannot avoid perspective in a photograph. However, your perception of perspective will depend on distance, and with a wide angle lens, you may work much closer to the close objects in a scene, hence perspective will be more pronounced when taking images with a wide angle of view.

So it boils down to the angle of view, and there are wide angle lenses for any camera - even most modern point and shoot cameras may produce the pronounced perspective that conveys depth, due to wide angle of view.

In the camera, there is only one factor involved, angle of view. Then it is a matter of choosing the vantage point from where to shoot the image to convey the depth you wish that the photo should display. You might for example choose a 7-14 mm lens for µ4/3, or a 10-24 mm for APS-C format; both have more or less the same angle of view in the short end of the zoom range. If you prefer full frame, you might get a 14 mm lens with similar angle of view as the 7 mm for µ4/3 or 10 mm for APS-C. In essence, all cameras with or without mirror can render perspective similarly. When looking at the image, you could probably not tell what type of camera that was used. Mirror-free cameras are made with all three sensor sizes.

There is absolutely no such difference between mirror-free systems and DSLR systems as you suggest.

[Manfred M]

Oops meant crop frame APS-C versus a mFT; both of which are technically crop frames, I'll correct the post.

Of course, by extension, any size of sensor could be added to the discussion; 1/2.3" that are commonly found in some P&S or crossover cameras, full-frame sensors, medium format, etc.

[FLok]

Thanks.
Until further notice all mi bets are on the Sigma SD-15, I really notice more depth perception.
Like in the photo that xpatUSA used as a example.



Again thanks for your support!

[rpcrowe]

There are many ways to accentuate depth in an image... One easy way is framing the image such as using the branches of a tree to frame a landscape...

Of course, using a shallow depth of field, with only your subject in focus will give the illusion of depth in a two dimensional image...

Lighting can also increase or decrease the perception of depth. An example of this (but certainly not the only example) is using a hair-light to separate your subject's hair from the background...

As mentioned, using a wide angle or especially an UWA lens with a predominate subject in the foreground will accentuate depth as a long focal length will tend to flatten distances. However, a catch-22 situation is that the long focal length lens will normally produce an image with a more narrow DOF leaving the subject in focus and the BG OOF.

[jcuknz]

Hi!

A question to you all regarding depth perception in photos and camera types.
Is it me or a $700 DSLR has a better depth perception that a $900 Mirrorless camera?

Thanks

As I read this I get the impression that it is a desperate attempt to justify getting the cheaper camera
But then I am biased against the DSLR and naturally chose an MFT as most suitable for what I do with photography where I try to emulate the style of creating a 3D look in a 2D medium where this is appropriate.
Actually my MFT is a DSLR in almost everything, it doesn't have a mirror, so my distaste is for what is known as a DSLR today and am grateful I do not have to use one

[Black Pearl]

The question becomes even more confusing if we were to pick a full frame mirrorless body and an APSC DSLR

[Inkanyezi]

Thanks.
Until further notice all mi bets are on the Sigma SD-15, I really notice more depth perception.
Like in the photo that xpatUSA used as a example.

I am afraid that you might have misunderstood the issue completely.
As I have stated before, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the camera.

There is nothing that makes a certain type of camera give you "more" depth perception; then of course it is also a question of more than what?

The impression of depth, or rather illusion, largely depends on lighting in the actual image.

Of course, you could go ahead and buy such a camera, but you wouldn't automagically get images of that kind with it, as the important factor is not the camera, but the knowledge to use it and the lighting. An image with similar perceivable "depth" could be taken with just about any simple point and shoot camera, even with a modern smartphone or a tablet, provided its resolution is just good enough. A large part of the impression of the image also is the post production treatment.

The clue is that you need to know how to accomplish what you want to do - not which camera.