Do I need a large sensor or shallow depth of field for travel photography?
Asked 4/8/2017
3 views
2 answers
0
I’m planning a 3‑month trip and want the best balance of image quality, portability, and zoom range. I currently have a Sony RX100, but I’m considering options like a 1-inch superzoom, an APS-C body with an 18-200mm lens, or even full frame. Ideally I’d travel with one lens.
I’m unsure how important shallow depth of field really is for travel photos. Most of my shots would likely be taken outdoors in daylight, and I often want both the subject and the background recognizable so the location is clear. Does that mean a smaller sensor or slower zoom lens is fine, or is there still a strong reason to go for a larger sensor system?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
9y ago
2 Answers
3
Regarding the shallow DoF.
I am really conflicted in my camera needs... Question is do I need them?
Question is... do you need them?
If you have not develped an artistic style, or if you are not doing Portrait photography most likely you do not need shallow DoF.
(But I must say this examples are most likely taken arround f/1.8 or a long lens)
I do not think you will be happy taking a picture of an historical building all blurryed on the background and only one mailbox on focus. Probably you do, but again. I think travel photos will be travel photos if you have not a photographic style.
A recomendation is that you take the gear you currently have and go arround your own city or town and take photos there to define your needs.
Mpx? Portability? Low light, wide angle? Telephoto? You will be probably using a lot your cellphone for selfies to prove that you were there.
So go out and find out what you really want and expect.
This comes to my mind: https://www.google.com.mx/search?q=travel+photography+expectation+vs+reality
Reading your question a bit in deepth:
So the sweet spot seems to be sony 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 lens, which is unlikely to give me many shallow DoF photos.
Nop.
You need for example a 50mm 1.8 lens.
A 18mm 3.5 will keep a lot in focus.
The 200mm 6.3 side, yes... if the subject is pretty far (portrait) but I am afraid the landmark you are trying to photograph most likely will not be in the frame.
Originally by user37321. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user37321
9y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Shallow depth of field is not something you inherently “need” for travel photography. It’s mainly an artistic choice. If you’re not focused on portraits or a style that relies on blurred backgrounds, then having more of the scene in focus is often preferable for travel images.
For typical daytime travel shooting, a larger sensor’s biggest advantage is less critical unless you need very large prints or frequently shoot in low light. In bright sunlight, a smaller sensor camera can work very well, especially if you’re already happy with the image quality from your RX100.
The bigger issue is usually not sensor size but how much gear you want to carry and how much photography will compete with enjoying the trip. Better photos come more from skill, attention, and practice than from spending more on equipment.
A good reality check is to use your current camera around your own town as if you were traveling. If it already gives you the kinds of images you want, you may not need to upgrade just to get shallow depth of field.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI9y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Which lens should I buy for a Scotland trip: Canon 10-22mm or 50mm f/1.4 on a 550D?
Will a 1-inch compact at f/1.8 blur backgrounds more than a phone camera at f/0.95?
Why would I use very small apertures like f/11 on a compact camera such as the Sony RX100 III?
Does the Ricoh GR II’s APS-C sensor offset its slower lens and lack of stabilization versus the Sony RX100 III?
Does a 1-inch sensor get the same exposure as APS-C at the same ISO and aperture?