Re: Depth of field confusion
Depth of field is an optical property of a focal length, a focus point and an aperture. Think of it as an equation - change one value and the result (DOF) changes.
Now a DSLR like that is a different format than 35mm - the angle of view of whatever lens you're using is 1.6x less than on a 35mm camera. In other words, a 50mm lens now looks like about an 80mm.
Something doesn't make sense though - you should get more depth of field if you use the same angle of view (which is a shorter focal length) while keeping the focus point and aperture the same. Are you shooting at the same ISO speed? If ISO400 film and ISO100 on the digital, then you've got two stops less aperture to deal with for the same shutter speed.
Re: Depth of field confusion
Your 7i like my A1 and A2 uses a smaller sensor than the 20D (I bought one too!).
So the focal length of the lenses is shorter for the same apparent image size.
While my A1 and A2 are marked 28-200 (35mm equivalent) they are actually only 7.2-50mm focal length. With that short focal length the depth of field is greater.
from http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/dof/
The depth of field of a digital camera with a lens of the 1:N focal length equivalence ratio at a given F-setting is the same as that of a 35 mm camera with a lens closed down to the aperture number of F multiplied by N.
So with the Minolta 50.8:200 is about 4, so f4 on the Minolta gives equivalent DoF distance to f16 on 35mm !
Re: Depth of field confusion
Thanks, guys, for your help. There's a glimmering of further understanding going on at my end ;-)
Clutching at straws, I've read the following today in a camera shop's brochure about Sigma lenses: "Lenses with a DC designation are designed only for the smaller size APS-C and 4.3RDS system digital SLRs". Both my lenses are marked DC - could this be the problem?
Thanks again,
James
Re: Depth of field confusion
Don't you just love guys who answer the question without doing a little research first? That would be me!
So now it makes sense. I assumed that your previous camera was 35mm film but didn't bother (obviously!) to see that it's a compact digital. So my theory was right, but Paul helped out better - since you were using a smaller focal length for the same angle of view, you had more depth of field.
I've usually found too much DOF to be a problem with small digitals, moreso than too little with DSLR's. Different shooting style, I suppose.
Once again, it's not the lenses that are a problem. A 50mm is a 50mm is a 50mm - it's the angle of view that the focal length sees that's the issue here. A 50mm lens would be much longer than anything you have on your compact digital camera (forget about 35mm equivalents because they'll just cause problems with DOF - they're only valid when talking about the all-important angle of view).
Re: Depth of field confusion
OK, I kind of understand what's going on now...
I think part of the problem is that I was so used to the long DOF from my Minolta, the shallow one from the Canon came as a bit of a surprise. But the more I use it, the more I remember how my original 35mm SLR (Praktica BX20 - long time and 4 digital upgrades ago!) performed. I'm just going to have to be ultra-careful with my focussing!
Anyway, thanks very much for your assistance in helping me understand what's going on - I appreciate it :-)
James
Re: Depth of field confusion
here is a comprehensive guide to depth of field in the digital and 35mm domain
http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/dofdigital/