Jul 26, 2004, 15:02
Hey, I think I just learned something and thought I'd share....
I just took 2 photos from the same spot... the first is at 35mm and the second at 420mm. Both pics were shot with an F number of 4.0 but with different shutter speeds (1/250 & 1/150, respectively). Everything I've read has said that depth of field is determined by aperture... the smaller the aperture, the shallower the DOF. It is obvious in these two photos, however, that #2 has a much shallower DOF than #1 even though they were shot through the same-sized aperture. Am I making sense at all? I wouldn't think the different shutter speeds would account for the DOF, or would they?
#1
![[Image: P1010555_rz600.jpg]](http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v354/Carminta/shuttertalk/P1010555_rz600.jpg)
#2 - it's a garbage photo but it illustrates the point, methinks.
![[Image: P1010556_rz600.jpg]](http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v354/Carminta/shuttertalk/P1010556_rz600.jpg)
I just took 2 photos from the same spot... the first is at 35mm and the second at 420mm. Both pics were shot with an F number of 4.0 but with different shutter speeds (1/250 & 1/150, respectively). Everything I've read has said that depth of field is determined by aperture... the smaller the aperture, the shallower the DOF. It is obvious in these two photos, however, that #2 has a much shallower DOF than #1 even though they were shot through the same-sized aperture. Am I making sense at all? I wouldn't think the different shutter speeds would account for the DOF, or would they?
#1
![[Image: P1010555_rz600.jpg]](http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v354/Carminta/shuttertalk/P1010555_rz600.jpg)
#2 - it's a garbage photo but it illustrates the point, methinks.
![[Image: P1010556_rz600.jpg]](http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v354/Carminta/shuttertalk/P1010556_rz600.jpg)