A couple of days ago somebody asked me why my wildflower pictures look different than most pictures you see. The answer turns out to be that my camera is weird—but mostly in a good way.

Typically, if you want to take a close-up shot, you set your camera to its widest angle setting because that’s where you can focus the closest. Here’s what this looks like:

May 4, 2019 — Lens set at widest focal length (24mm equivalent)

That’s OK. But my camera’s lens is an odd one. Normally, the more you zoom, the farther away you have to be. But on the Sony, the closest focus is at the longest zoom setting. It’s also tack sharp. Here’s what that looks like:

May 4, 2019 — Lens set at longest focal length (600mm equivalent)

The top picture is cropped, and I modified the exposure of both images slightly to make them look more similar. On the normal shot at the top, the angle of view is wide and the depth of field is deep, which means the background is only moderately out of focus. On the bottom shot, taken at 600mm, the angle of view is very narrow and the depth of field is shallow, which means the background is way out of focus. This makes the flower pop out of the background.

On the downside, that shallow depth of field also means that sometimes parts of the flower itself are out of focus. In the example above, the stamens of the flower are sharp but the edges of the petals are a little soft. This may or may not be an effect you like, but you can always use a smaller f-stop if you want a little more depth of field. Like this:

May 4, 2019 — Lens set at longest focal length (600mm equivalent) and stopped down to f/8

In this one, the entire flower is sharp but the background is still pleasantly out of focus. You can decide for yourself which of these you like better, but I generally prefer the middle picture: mostly sharp and with excellent bokeh in the background. But this is only possible with a camera that focuses closely even at its maximum zoom. In 45 years of on-and-off photography, I’d never come across a lens like that until I got the Sony.

POSTSCRIPT: As usual, none of this applies to professional photographers, who would probably use a 100mm macro lens on a top-of-the-line camera with a full-frame sensor to take pictures like this. That will get you a sharp focus, a fairly narrow angle of view, and a shallow depth-of-field. It will also set you back $5,000 or more.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate