Advice on f.stop / aperture

Messages
5
Name
Frazer
Edit My Images
No
Hey. I am very new to photography. My wife bought me a Nikon p510 and i am hooked. The lowest f.stop on my camera is 3.5

I love the photos of people shot with a 1.8 aperture. But simply can't 're create this on my camera... or can I?

My question is, is there a trick I can use on my camera or software? (Lightroom cc)

If not can u suggest a cheap new camera and lens I could but to take cool photos. I've been looking at a Nikon d3300 or 3400 with a 1.8 lens. Any suggestions?
 
To achieve an aperture of f1.8, you will need a lens that opens up that far. As your camera lens is fixed - you can't get f1.8 on your existing equipment - using a DSLR or mirrorless camera with something like a 50mm 1.8 will allow you to achieve the aperture you want. Have you had chance to read up on what an aperture is, and how it works yet? It's good that you've got the photography bug - what are you doing to expand your knowledge aside from looking at peoples pictures?
 
Hey.

Yes I know what it is. I knew I couldn't actually change the 3.5 down to 1.8 just wondered if there were any tips or tricks to make it appear like a lower aperture.

Have u any suggestions of a cheap ish camera that's good for beginners

:)
 
I wouldn't recommend trying to achieve the 'bokeh' effect with software, it just isn't good enough yet.

What you are talking about is the depth of field - this is the area of a scene that is acceptabley sharp - the narrower the DoF, the more out of focus your background/foreground is, compared to your subject.
It's often used to seperate your subject from distracting backgrounds with pleasing 'out of focus' areas or bokeh.

Two things can affect the depth of field:
1 - the aperture, you're right a f1.8 lens will have a narrower depth of field than an f3.5
2 - the distance to your subject - the closer you are to your subject the narrower the depth of field also.

It depends on what your are photographing of course, but try moving closer to your subject, set the aperture to it's widest setting (small f number) and see what happens.

Insofar as whether to buy a camera with an interchangeable lens, pretty much any modern dslr is an amazing tool. And the ubiquitous 'Nifty Fiftys' - the 50mm f1.8, are very cheap these days, and are great for all sorts of things....I can't speak for Nikon being a Canon shooter, but you'd get some decent results whichever way you went.

Hope this helps.

Good luck and welcome to TP :welcome:
 
Last edited:
I also use Canon so can't comment on Nikon - do you have a budget in mind of what you might want to spend in total on a body and lens combination? Knowing that will help us guide you to some of the better options within your price range.
 
Or ... try standing back and zooming in.

with your subject distanced from the BG.

You'll probably find your f number has increased but don't worry about that.

:D
 
Or ... try standing back and zooming in.

with your subject distanced from the BG.

You'll probably find your f number has increased but don't worry about that.

:D

Indeed, I forgot about focal length....that affects DoF too.:oops: :$

And while we're at it, so does sensor size - without needlessly complicating things, the bigger the sensor, the narrower the depth of field.

All entry level cameras will be crop sensors meaning you lose a little depth of field, but full frame (35mm film equivalent) cameras have bigger sensors, but cost more.

Yep, it all comes down to money unfortunately, but don't rule out the used markets....some great bargains to be had....just about all my gear is second hand!
 
Depth of field is also shallower the longer the focal length if the distance to the subject isn't changed i.e. a 200mm focal length would have a shallow DoF than a 50mm focal length would at the same subject distance. if the distance from camera to subject is shorter than subject to background that would also produce a nice blurred background. When photographing Puffins a while back they were about 2-3m in front of me but the background was quite far in the distance (50-100m+). I was increasing the aperture f5.6/ f8 to get the puffin more in focus (sharp eyes and blurred beaks aren't a great look).

Edit: @d00d beat me to it :)
 
Hey guys. It doesn't have to be a Nikon. . . I'm happy to have a 2nd hand one as well. It's Xmas coming up and my 30th in March... so could add those two gifts together. Maybe 300?
 
Indeed, I forgot about focal length....that affects DoF too.:oops: :$

And while we're at it, so does sensor size - without needlessly complicating things, the bigger the sensor, the narrower the depth of field.

All entry level cameras will be crop sensors meaning you lose a little depth of field, but full frame (35mm film equivalent) cameras have bigger sensors, but cost more.

Yep, it all comes down to money unfortunately, but don't rule out the used markets....some great bargains to be had....just about all my gear is second hand!

A few years back I tried to do a comparison using a crop camera and full frame camera. I tried to keep the same 'effective focal length' by including the crop factor of the crop body (i.e. 200mm with 1.5 crop body was effectively the same as 300mm focal length on the full frame). Keeping the the same f5.6 aperture on both I was surprised by the results. Not sure if the sensor made the biggest difference, the focal length probably made the biggest difference.

D71_8459 by Rob Cain, on Flickr

DSC_9172 by Rob Cain, on Flickr

This may say f5.6 in the watermark but it was actually f4 on the crop camera

D71_8459 by Rob Cain, on Flickr
 
With a budget of around £300 - you could pick up something like a Canon EOS 50d and a 50mm 1.8 used... you might just stretch to a 60d, but I would go for a 50 in better condition rather than the bottom end of the 60 price range based on shutter counts etc.... The 50d was a good solid reliable camera - I owned two.
 
There are plenty of used cameras about, eBay and Facebook market place are a good place to look. You should be able to pick up a nikon d3300, d3400, d5500, d5600 with a kit lens. I can't comment on the canon range as I'm a nikon chap myself. The best advice is pop down to currys or a local camera store and have a good feel and fiddle with all the buttons to see how it fits your hands and take it from there.
 
Hey guys. It doesn't have to be a Nikon. . . I'm happy to have a 2nd hand one as well. It's Xmas coming up and my 30th in March... so could add those two gifts together. Maybe 300?
Have you got any links to photos (post links to where they are hosted online rather than the actual photos on here if they are someone else photos) that you like at f1.8? Also if you can post up some of the images you have taken it may help everyone give you advice. There may be something that someone on here can help you get closer to the style you like. Like everyone has said there is much more to bokeh/shallow DoF than just aperture.
 
Last edited:
Here's a few links to some decent used cameras, from Wex, they're based in Norwich....where I live:D....just for information only....not biased or anything!!

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/nikon-d5300-digital-slr-camera-body-black-used-1682379/ - £293

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/nikon-d7000-digital-slr-camera-body-used-1680169/ - £249

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/canon-eos-700d-digital-slr-camera-body-used-1679865/ - £266

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/canon-eos-7d-digital-slr-camera-body-used-1683019/ - £264

All are under £300, so you'd have some change left over for a nifty fity....a used one probably.

I'm sure all these are great performers....the Canon 7D is a speed demon (I have one!) but is a bit long in the tooth nowadays, but to find one with a shutter count of less than 20,000 is quite something....most have been hammered....it's difficult not to lol....I should know!!!:D

It will be impossible to buy a brand new camera that could do what these can for the money....as much as it pains me to say it but the entry level Canon cameras are not very good - all plastic construction, and very cheap....not in a good way!

Some say that Nikons low light capabilities are better than Canon, I suppose I must reluctantly agree, but any one of those listed above are going to perform well in most situations.

These are just for information....you should do your own research of course.

(y)
 
Last edited:
I love the photos of people shot with a 1.8 aperture. But simply can't 're create this on my camera... or can I?
I'm assuming you mean blurred out backgrounds (BG's), and yes, you can. I do it frequently with apertures down to f/11.

Unless we are talking about macro work, I don't think Depth Of Field (DOF) is really that terribly relevant... you can have 1", 6", or 2ft at the subject and it won't make a huge difference. What matters more is the difference in distance between the camera>subject and camera>BG... the greater the difference, the more out of focus the BG will be. I.e. short subject distance and long BG distance. And this *is* something you can control in a lot of instances, at least to some degree.

The other significant factor is how magnified the BG is, and often you can use a longer FL to enhance the effect. I.e. if you switch from a 50mm to a 100mm and double the distance to the subject, the DOF remains pretty much the same (w/ same aperture) and the size of the subject remains the same but the size of the BG becomes larger and less is included. Again, the difference in distances is a significant factor here as well.
I.e. if your subject is at 10ft and the BG is at 50ft w/ the 50mm and then you switch to 100mm. You have to back away from the subject to 2x the distance to negate the 2x increase in magnification so you're now at 20ft from the subject. But you are only an additional 10ft away from the BG, so 60ft instead of 50ft... you have *not* negated the 2x increase in magnification at that distance, you've only removed ~ 20% of it.
 
Your camera is a small-sensor 'bridge' camera with inbuilt , mega-range, zoom.

The 'big aperture' effects we presume you are after, are shallow-focus effects.. as has been suggested, go read up on Depth-of-Field of DoF.

Essentially the DoF you get around a subject is proportional, first to the camera to subject distance, and then the 'out-of-focus' beyond the subject, that shows the shallow-focus effect, on the distance between subject and back-ground.

Your camera, is NOT particularly suited to thie sort of effect, from the off though, because of that small sensor.

As you shrink the sensor, so you shorten the focal length of lens that give the same angle of view.

Eg: I have a 120 roll film camera, that puts a 9x3cm image on the film; its 'normal-angle' lens is 105mm focal length.

On one of my 35mm film cameras (or some-one elses 'full-frame' digital) the sensor size is 24x36mm, and now the focal length that provides the 'normal' angle of view is about 50mm.

On my 'crop-sensor' DSLR the sensor size is half that of film/full frame, at 16x24mm, and the 'normal' angle focal length is now 35mm or so.

I have a little action cam; it has a micro-sensor, I dontr recall just how small, BUT its 'normal' angle lens is just 4.5mm focal length... which on my DSLR is a 180 degree field of view fish-eye!

And I mention that, because, smaller sensors are popular on more comnsumer level cameras; the smaller sensor is cheaper to make, and begs an equally cheaper to make shorter focal length lens, BUT more importantly, the shorter lens inherently has a much closer and shorter range of critical focus.

On my 4.5mm fish-eye, the closest focus distance is effectively zero, and I can almost stick the front element against something and get its image in focus! The DoF around that is then almost infinate, and it virtually renders the entire focus mechamism redundant, again, making the camera easier to use in over-the-counter hands, and cheaper to make.

But, as the sensor size increases, so the 'normal' angle of view lens grows, and so the closest focus, and range of critical focus grows AND you start to see at more 'normal' camera-subject-background distances, this sort of out-of-cocus dissociation you associate with wide appertures.

Its actually a bit of a perversion; when 35mm film cameras started to come along, the main sales feature of the era was that using more common 'movie' film, that colour was more widely and cheaply available... a-n-d folk started to grumble that they didn't get the same shallow-focus effects with them, which begged something of an arms race between the makers to make lenes with ever wider appertures that 'sort' of made them possible, and 'fast' lenses went from maybe f3.5, to f2.8, to f2, and down further to perhaps f1.8, with some achieving as wide as f1.4.

Worth noting, that this vogue, in the 70's and 80's was prompted by the desire to achieve shallow-focus effects with smaller format cameras, BUT... by the time you get to smaller still, sensor digital cameras, you can get a perversion, where that incredibly shallow focus created by the wide apperture, also looses the gradual 'focus-fade' between subject and back-ground, and insteead a very clinical 'cut off' of aparent focus between the two, which takes this 'disociation' between subject and situation so far, that its often critasised as 'looking foto-shopped' the subject cut and pasted into the scene...

SO.... as an 'effect' you really need to understand it, and how and what and when its achieved... its NOT just the aperture, it is the camera-subject-background distances at first call, the aperture and the lens and the sensor size all then has influence on that, but its ALSO significant that the actual back-ground has a lot too.

A plain blank wall, is pretty bland and lacking textre or detail is non-descript whether it's in focus or not....

To give the clue that this effect is happening, the back-ground needs to have detail to be rendered out of focus... and to help show that and avoid the aparent photo-shop cuit and past 'look' there needs to be some detail between subject and back-ground to actually show a focus 'fade'.

Which puts an awful lot of it on the technique, not the technology.... and recognising that you really dont have technology best suited to achieving this sort of effect, no matter how much technique you chuck at it.

I have a bigger sensor begging longer lenses in my rop-sensor DSLR, and if I use an adapter, I can use some pretty fast lenses on it... mostly from my old 35mm film cameras; BUT, even there, it's not the fast aperture, or even the longer lens that gives me more shallow-focus effect ability, and I need to set the scene to get some shallow focus happening... and still, I dont get the nice gradual focus-fade I would using my 120 folder with its 105mm 'normal' lens, even at its pretty modest f3.5 'widest' aperture.

To get some with your camera; with such a small sensor and short focal length lens, you may... but you will have to zoom 'in' an awful lot, which will beg you back away from your subject an awful lot, to get the same 'framing' around them, and you will need to have an AWFUL lot of distance between the subject and the back-ground, before that starts falling out of focus... especially as it's likely that the f3.5 'fastest' aperture is only available at the widest lens length settings, and that f-number will go up to something like f6.5 as you zoom in, and you still risk the looks-photo-shopped look, IF the distances are out and the back and middle ground aren't conducive to showing out-of-focus fade....

Short answer is probably a simple 'No' you wont really be able to get that sort of shallow focus effect with that camera... it's possible, but really not easy and here the kit os working against you rather than for you. Bigger format cameras are the real answer, but even there, a crop-sensor DSLR is still struggling, and a fill-frame DSLR or 35mm film camera not the best suited to offering the effect 'easily'.

Just found specs, and your camera has a diddy little 6x5mm sensor! The normal angle lens length on that would be about 8mm... so something in the order of an 6x crop factor compared to a 35mm or full frame camera.. and it's that crop factor that's being exploited to give an 'effective' focal length of 24 - 1000 mm... in reality, the lens is only something like 4mm to 160mm actual focal length, and a lens is a lens is a lens, it dont care how big the sensor is behind it. At that sort of focal length range, shallow focus effects are not going to come, at all easy.
 
Last edited:
Wow thanks for all the advice guys. Haven't time to read through it all right now. Off to work. But I will get there soon and post a reply. Thank you all :)
 
If a subject is below your eyeline try kneeling down. The angle of the shot will put the background further away.
 
It's not just aperture which determines this. Sensor size does too.Steve.

Well, not really. I'd argue not. With a smaller sensor you'll probably be using a wider focal length and a smaller aperture. For example with a small sensor you may be using a 4mm f2.6 lens like the one on my phone and you're never going to easily get the shallow DoF look you'd get from a larger sensor and a 85mm f1.4 from that. So, it's the wide lens with the smaller aperture that's actually to blame. Maybe.

My advice for the OP... use the longer end of the zoom at the widest aperture it can manage and get the subject away from the background if at all possible.
 
Well, not really. I'd argue not. With a smaller sensor you'll probably be using a wider focal length and a smaller aperture.

I’ve seen the maths that prove smaller sensors don’t have greater DoF and it baffles me (not because I don’t understand the maths); because in practical terms we all know that a typical MF camera makes it easy to create DoF that’s too thin, a FF camera is great for shallow DoF and a phone cam has virtually no control of the DoF.

Now someone can show me the maths again, but frankly the ‘general view’ is that a larger sensor will help the OP.
 
I’ve seen the maths that prove smaller sensors don’t have greater DoF and it baffles me (not because I don’t understand the maths); because in practical terms we all know that a typical MF camera makes it easy to create DoF that’s too thin, a FF camera is great for shallow DoF and a phone cam has virtually no control of the DoF.

Now someone can show me the maths again, but frankly the ‘general view’ is that a larger sensor will help the OP.
That's because of all of the equivalence debates/arguments, and the fact that DOF in an image doesn't actually exist as a fixed entity.

In reality the only factor we 100% control is the COC (point blur radius) recorded on the sensor/film... And all else being physically the same, the smaller sensor actually has less DOF. That's because for an equivalent viewing size it has to either be physically enlarged more, or viewed from a shorter distance; both of which make the recorded point blur more apparent reducing the DOF. It's the same effect as using a longer FL or shorter subject distance during input/recording, it's just at the output/viewing stage instead. The actual DOF presented to the viewer depends equally on both the input/recording and output/viewing stages.

But "all else the same" results in differing compositions... if you correct for that by using either a shorter FL or a longer subject distance the net result is that the smaller sensor has more DOF (details/blur recorded smaller on the sensor). That's primarily because FL (magnification) and distance both have 2x the effect on DOF (recorded point blur) than aperture does.
 
Last edited:
I’ve seen the maths that prove smaller sensors don’t have greater DoF and it baffles me (not because I don’t understand the maths); because in practical terms we all know that a typical MF camera makes it easy to create DoF that’s too thin, a FF camera is great for shallow DoF and a phone cam has virtually no control of the DoF.

Then the maths is either wrong, or incomplete, or not comparing apples to apples.

Now someone can show me the maths again, but frankly the ‘general view’ is that a larger sensor will help the OP.

Yes, that's the bottom line. And IMHO it's perfectly valid to say that larger sensors deliver shallower DoF, full stop. It may be a shorthand for the full explanation, but since sensor size drives everything else and that's how we experience DoF in practise, it's good enough for me.
 
Then the maths is either wrong, or incomplete, or not comparing apples to apples.

Yes, that's the bottom line. And IMHO it's perfectly valid to say that larger sensors deliver shallower DoF, full stop. It may be a shorthand for the full explanation, but since sensor size drives everything else and that's how we experience DoF in practise, it's good enough for me.

Following on from that, the OP is severely limited with a small-sensor camera if blown out-of-focus backgrounds (like Rob's squirrel) are the name of the game. Background blur is not the same as shallow DoF, though that's a major component. To maximise background blur:
- use a large sensor camera
- use long focal length
- get as close to the main subject as possible
- have the background as far away as possible
- use the lowest f/number

This is a pretty good blur simulator to visualise results. Note that doubling the focal length - and moving back to twice the distance to maintain same framing of the main subject - produces background blur equal to using an f/number two stops lower.
https://dofsimulator.net/en/
 
Note that doubling the focal length - and moving back to twice the distance to maintain same framing of the main subject - produces background blur equal to using an f/number two stops lower.
When the BG is some great distance away... when the subject and BG are closer together then backing up to negate the increased magnification of the subject also negates more/most of the increased magnification at the BG.

I played with the simulator in advanced mode and got these results for a FF sensor.
FL...... Ap ......SubjDist..... BgdDist........BlurRadius..........DOF
50....... f/8........10ft..............15ft......... .035mm/.10%......6.03ft
100..... f/8.........20ft.............25ft......... .042mm/.12%......5.67ft
50........f/4.........10ft.............15ft.......... .069mm/.19%.....2.84ft

But the 50/4 image still looked very similar to the 50/8 image even though it has ~ 1/2 the DOF and 2x BR.... it took a reduction to 50/2 before it started to become clearly apparent at that smaller display size. Now that I've learned to use the thing, I like it a lot better; using the tree BG, 6blade aperture, bokeh generator and advanced mode I got expected/reasonable results... I can't figure out what it's doing in basic mode...
 
Last edited:
When the BG is some great distance away... when the subject and BG are closer together then backing up to negate the increased magnification of the subject also negates more/most of the increased magnification at the BG.

I played with the simulator in advanced mode and got these results for a FF sensor.
FL...... Ap ......SubjDist..... BgdDist........BlurRadius..........DOF
50....... f/8........10ft..............15ft......... .035mm/.10%......6.03ft
100..... f/8.........20ft.............25ft......... .042mm/.12%......5.67ft
50........f/4.........10ft.............15ft.......... .069mm/.19%.....2.84ft

But the 50/4 image still looked very similar to the 50/8 image even though it has ~ 1/2 the DOF and 2x BR.... it took a reduction to 50/2 before it started to become clearly apparent at that smaller display size. Now that I've learned to use the thing, I like it a lot better; using the tree BG, 6blade aperture, bokeh generator and advanced mode I got expected/reasonable results... I can't figure out what it's doing in basic mode...

Yes, to get the full two stops effective increase in background blur when doubling focal length, the background needs to be fairly distant. I should have made that more clear, if you'll excuse the pun :D But there are still big benefits when the background isn't that far behind. The point I'm really trying to make is that you don't always need a super fast f/1.4 prime for blown backgrounds and you can often do it just as well with the tele-zoom you already have.

The proof of the pudding though, is to just have a go and see what you get - say with a quick portrait in the garden with something you want to blur in the background. Frame it up at a shorter focal length, then zoom to twice the focal length and move back to double the distance, and take another snap at the same f/number. There will be a big increase in background blur.

ps Glad you're liking that blur simulator more this time ;) I find it very hard to visualise this kind of effect from a graph and a bunch of numbers so it's a really handy tool. I don't know of anything else like it.
 
Last edited:
Following on from that, the OP is severely limited with a small-sensor camera if blown out-of-focus backgrounds (like Rob's squirrel) are the name of the game. Background blur is not the same as shallow DoF, though that's a major component. To maximise background blur:
- use a large sensor camera
- use long focal length
- get as close to the main subject as possible
- have the background as far away as possible
- use the lowest f/number

This is a pretty good blur simulator to visualise results. Note that doubling the focal length - and moving back to twice the distance to maintain same framing of the main subject - produces background blur equal to using an f/number two stops lower.
https://dofsimulator.net/en/
That simulator is great fun.
 
Nikon has some great f/1,8 primes in the 20-85mm range. A 35mm is a good first choice.
 
Back
Top