I am looking for some still images that show the depth of field on the EX1 camera.
Does anyone have some nice headshots of an actor from different distances away with a nice DOF?

Please email some samples to silasbarker@ymail.com

Thanks in advance!

You want to see the dof on an EX1 camera Silas? You mean minimum dof when you say 'nice'? Seems an odd request because it depends on focal length, aperture, closeness of subject, distance to background and so on. Same applies to the Z1. The Z1 can have less dof than the Ex1 with just a small difference in any one of the above settings.

tom.

I suspect that his question is more related to any difference between the 1/3 and the 1/2 inch chips in these cameras. I believe that any differences are made up by the settings Tom related in his post. My experience between the Z7 and the EX3 has been similar. In other words I could control DOF with both cameras to my satisfaction.

Heck, even with my old good V1E (just 1/4" sensors) I could effectively control DoF...

Tom is quite right that apart from the sensor size, a lot of other factors influence the DoF at any given moment, on any given camera.

Thing to remember is that the smaller the chip, the harder you've got to work to limit your dof - and that's the bottom line. With 6x6 cameras you were always struggling to get enough dof; with 1"/8 chipped phone-cams you'll never differentiate the foreground from the background.

tom.

Silas, here's an example done with my EX3. It's not a head shot but show a pretty small DoF:

Depth of Field (http://spahrproductions.com/site/Depth_of_Field.html)

(You can download the full size file for a closer look.)

Thanks everyone,
I realize that shooting at different distances changes the DOF.

I am really looking to just see still image samples.

Please email a few at silasbarker@ymail.com

And yes I want to see the difference with the 1/2" chips.

Love to see how much DOF you can get in an outside shot (howevere far the actor is)

Silas, are you asking how easy it is to get a short depth of field on the Z1 in comparison to the EX1?

And for the record, it's confusing when posters ask "how much depth of field can I get?" when really what they mean is "how little." If you want to have your subject in focus and the background blurred, you're looking for a SHORT depth of field.

Thats correct, how shallow of depth of field, sorry.

Anyways email images to
silasbarker@ymail.com

Gotten nothing from anyone yet.....

Also does anyone see an increase in business from having the EX rather then Z1 or Z5 or similar?

Are you looking for a measurement, or a number?? Back the camera up, zoom it in, open the iris, and pow.

Wow.

I am not sure how many times I need to say it:

I am looking for some still images that show the depth of field on the EX1 camera.
Does anyone have some nice headshots of an actor from different distances away with a nice SHALLOW DOF?

Please email some samples to silasbarker@ymail.com

Thanks in advance!

Wow.
Not a headshot but an example of DOF on an EX1. Picky...

Shooting different distances, but maintaining the same frame on the subject doesn't change DoF by more than a few percent. What it does is narrow the field of view, and a slightly blurred background stretches to fill the frame giving the illusion of less DoF. It's not a true increase, but it works. Zooming does decreases DoF, but DoF increases with distance to subject in focus, so they almost cancel each other out.

There are plenty of head shots on my website, the galleries shot with my EX3 are clearly labelled.

does anyone see an increase in business from having the EX rather then Z1 or Z5 or similar?

Give up on the dof quest Silas, there are just too many variables, really there are. But that's a good question of yours (above). I'm guessing the answer will be not many. My clients buy my interpersonal skills as much as my knowledge of mic techniques, camera control, editing and distribution. A Z1 looks very little different to an EX1 on the tripod, though of course we (the pixel-peepers) all know it produces startlingly better results.

tom.

DOF depends on magnification, f/stop, and the diameter of the circle of confusion. So if you keep the last two constant, magnification is the variable of interest. Your head shot (subject) is a given size, so the magnification (to fill the frame to the same extent) is related to the sensor size. The relative magnification for the EX1 to the Z1 is 0.5 inches to 0.333 inches (0.50/0.333). Applying the usual formulas tells you that the ex1 will give you a DOF 44% of the Z1's DOF (all apertures). Of course the Z1 will suffer more diffraction softening, so at smaller apertures the difference may appear greater.
The native resolution of the sensor and how the camera processes the image also affects the perceived DOF, as does the quality of the lens, subject lighting, and viewing conditions.

Adding to what Serena said, detail setting will also change perceived depth of field.
As detail is increased, the softer focused portions of the image will be progressively sharpened, increasing the apparent depth of field.

This also makes it tough to find useful comparison shots without doing side-by-side camera tests. But the result of those identical shots would be, a little shallower for the EX, not a lot.

Here's some images for you.

Great images - Exactly what I was looking for.....

Obviously the EX has a shallower depth of field and that is quite clear seeing these images below.

hey Silas,
if DOF is so important to you, have you thought about DSLR option?
In the controllable light situation T2i and 70-200mm will be much cheaper, have better image and give you paper thin DOF

I did nt realize that that had shallower DOF, but I wanted something that records longer as well.

All the same, any sample images you can post on here?

Really? The sensor on a Canon 5D Mk II is 36 x 24 mm. Perhaps you're not familiar with calculating DoF? A good example of 5D images can be seen in: YouTube - Explosion- the Canon 5D MarkII (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNGAs4EcpOQ)

I do not have u-tube access currently but my understanding was thet DOF is dependent upon sensor size and a iris thats open most of the way.... is that correct?

I was interested that you found useful the images Duncan kindly posted. What did you learn from those that was specific to your question? That it is possible to render a background somewhat out of focus? DoF is one of those fundamentals of photography, so this should not be a matter for confusion. Perhaps such technical knowledge is thought arcane in these days of automatic cameras. The short answer to your question is to refer you to Wiki: Depth of field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field) and you should take the time to understand the factors involved.

Strictly, an image formed by a lens is focused at only at a single subject distance from the lens, the image at all other distances being out of focus. However the amount of fuzziness increases with distance before and after the focus point, so the viewer will not observe fuzziness that is less than some threshold. The distance between those threshold points constitutes the DoF. Since it is the viewer who identifies where fuzziness begins, then DoF depends on viewing conditions, so the same image will appear to have much deeper DoF on an iPod than on a cinema screen.

Generally tables of DoF as a function of lens focal length and aperture vs subject distance are constructed for specific film/video formats for viewing in cinema conditions. Or (in stills) for viewing a specific sized print at a specific distance. Or, these days, on iPod, laptop, or TV, or cinema. So Tom Hardwick was correct "there are just too many variables" to provide the simplistic answer you seem to want. The figure I calculated for EX1/Z1 answers the question, but you have to understand what that means.
If you haven't access to YouTube, there is a better example of the 5D at Delray Beach Film Festival 2010 on Vimeo

Thanks for all that, I know all about DOF.

The question I had was concerning how much shallower can you get with the EX then Z1.

I believe I will have the answer on Wednesday when it comes in the mail.

Thanks everyone.

Excellent; glad that I was wrong in interpreting your response as ignorance. Then you understood that the answer, without waiting for the postman, is the DoF with the EX1 is 44% of that of the Z1. And that the Canon 5D has only 4% of the Z1 DoF.

Yes....however I did not realize anything about the 5D till a little late.

How does the image sensor compare on the 5D to the Ex in size?
Most specs showed the 5D in mm and the Ex in inches.

With the 5D is there a audio input and have you been able to compare the EX with the 5D?
Also I would need to shoot in multiple frame rates, and I am not sure if the 5D does or not.

Also.... how long can you record on a card with the 5D?

And is having one sensor look as good as far as colors and such? (good as Ex1r)

OK, the 5D comparative figure is 1.7 inches vs the 0.5" for the EX1r. There is an audio input on the 5D, and I believe the audio capabilities have been enhanced in the latest firmware upgrade. I don't have a 5D Mk II (only the Mk I) so suggest you drop in on Canon EOS 5D Mk. II for HD Forum at DVinfo.net (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-5d-mk-ii-hd/). I can tell you that several well experienced DOPs are using the 5DMkII (Victor Milt - the Delray Film Festival trailer- for one). You can read tests on DSLRs for video at: ProVideo Coalition.com: Picture Elements by Richard Harrington (http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/rharrington/story/dslr_shootout/)

Wow...1.7" - thats awesomeness!

I was reading on some other threads that the 5D really can not replace the Ex and also that its not so great handheld. But for certain uses I can see that this 5D camera would be very handy.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-xdcam-ex-cinealta/436139-ex-1-letus-adaptor-vs-canon-5d-better.html

I'll check out the info and thanks for sending it!

Who knows - I may end up sending my brand new EX1 back when it gets here and getting the 5D!
Although it would be really great to have at least 1 hour recording time so that its more useful to me for different purposes.

Yes, the Canon 5D isn't a run-n-gun camera and anyway shallow DoF isn't something you want in that work. Really you need to set it up with zacuto rails with follow focus and matte-box and a separate recorder, so there are added costs. On the other hand, it can be used "as is". If what you want is precise control of DoF, superior low light performance and great images, then the 5D will give all that. As one DOP said of the problems of the 5D being a still camera first and a video camera second: "I NEVER said it was EASY! It's a pain in the butt, for sure. It's so like the old days with 35mm, critical focus, exact exposures, no auto-anything...but call me old fashioned (I guess you already have) - I love the control that this camera gives me. No way is it "run and gun" and NO WAY is it forgiving. And getting sound from the location to the finished video will give you nightmares - but it's my favourite camera (for now)."