Actually the smaller the depth of field, the harder it is and the more skill is required to properly nail the focus like this. Especially when the subject is moving as fast as Peaty. If you had a greater depth of field, you could argue it would be easier to make sure the important bits of the shot would be sharp. Also, if you look at the shot info, you can see that he got the shot with a 50mm lens at F2. The Canon 50mm 1.8 lens is one of the cheapest you can buy for your DSLR, and a very good one. So you don't need to spend mega bucks to get the shot.

 This is the EF50mm f/1.4 USM... Not as cheap as the 1.8 but still a good price!

@Emotion-captured: A good DOF has nothing to say about the use of a high or low Aperture. Its the choice of making it 'blurry' or not... In this picture the Aperture/DOF is used very well!

 Yes I realised (slightly too late) it was the slightly more expensive one, but my point (not very well made) was that you could get the same result with a lens costing less than £100. Cheers

 True! Creating a great DOF is more than spend a lot of money... Its not as easy as buying a 1.8 / 1.4... Click! and you've got a photo like above!

 In this circumstance it was one of the only options... low light, avoiding flash the only thing i could do was shoot wideopen on a fast prime. Since it was a product shoot things had to be crisp.

Considering you can pay £100 for a bit of cnc'ed metal in a stem shape for £100. Spending £100 on an array of finely tuned pieces of glass coated with rare materials to prevent optical flaws and where even the slightest error in manufacture would result in it not working to its fullest seems like reasonable money.

 £100 is a lot for a stem as well

 @ emotion-catputer you think that every photography technique is overused, probably because you cant do it i presume. stick to riding your bike and shut the f*ck up when it comes to criticizing photos

 bootiful indeed.

 well.. that wouldn't be entirely true for the sensor size does come into play when determining depth of field. with the smaller sensors on the compacts to get the equivalent field of view you would be looking at a lens with a focal length of around 10mm or something silly like that. its pretty hard to get any sort of differential focus at that focal length.

 Not to mention the dynamic range wouldn't be nearly as wide - You'd lose a lot of clarity in the highs and lows which dramatically affects the quality and impact of the image.

On another note - Why is this shot provoking so much spraff from people who think they know their shit about cameras?

 It's not the shot, it's the comment from the guy saying that a narrow DoF is necessary for POD, which I don't think it is. It's a mint photo and if you look youll see its in my favourites

 I'm sorry if you felt my comment was targeted at you, it wasn't.