Options
Shallow depth of field and bokeh on m43?
In that last couple of threads, I've heard people worry about not being able to achieve a desirable shallow depth of field on m43 or 43 sensors.
How's this?
depth of field is so shallow his eyes are in focus, but the spinner isn't, which is actually kind of too bad for this shot.
OM-D E-M5
75mm prime
1.8
6:30 PM in the fog,
handheld
1/80 s
ISO 400
I'm not going to argue that m43 is better, pixel by pixel, than APS-C or full frame sensor cameras, that's kind of a red herring, and this shot won't stack up against the best over the in the Macro forum, but then again, this isn't a macro lens.
(oops, that was supposed to be "bokeh")
How's this?
depth of field is so shallow his eyes are in focus, but the spinner isn't, which is actually kind of too bad for this shot.
OM-D E-M5
75mm prime
1.8
6:30 PM in the fog,
handheld
1/80 s
ISO 400
I'm not going to argue that m43 is better, pixel by pixel, than APS-C or full frame sensor cameras, that's kind of a red herring, and this shot won't stack up against the best over the in the Macro forum, but then again, this isn't a macro lens.
(oops, that was supposed to be "bokeh")
Yeah, if you recognize the avatar, new user name.
0
Comments
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I was about 3 meters away from the spider. I didn't take the shot to make a case, I've been trying to find this guy in the morning in better light, but he disappears in the day, and only comes out at night. I finally just tried to get the shot I could, even with the fog and wind blowing the web, and was very pleasantly surprised at how the background the just melted away. I just thought it was good example.
It's a very nice shot, but your post really reads like you were trying to make a case for shallow DOF on m4/3. Distance to subject and distance to the background are huge factors of DOF. If you get close enough to the subject, and the bg is far enough away, you will throw the background out of focus, no matter what camera.
Maybe you're not one of these, but a lot of m4/3 owners have a major inferiority complex and are constantly trying to justify their purchase to other camera owners. It's annoying. Sorry if I assumed incorrectly that you were doing that.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Micro-Four-Thirds/Four-Thirds is rather more like taking a different aspect ratio crop, 4:3 in this instance, plus a very moderate crop besides.
Here is a comparison image (sorry, I can't find the original source to attribute to this image):
In fact, a Micro-Four-Thirds/Four-Thirds frame has about 88 percent of the height of a Canon APS-C frame, so if anyone thinks that should amount to a major, or even a generally visible, difference in bokeh, that would be a mistake.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
It is true, that the dof is not as shallow as can be gathered with a full frame camera, but used carefully m4/3 can create quite lovely images with nice backgrounds. Choice of lenses ( like with any format ) does play a role too.
Any of the m4/3 f1.8 lenses will give a shallow depth of field if used for near subjects, and are shot at a large aperture. I am sure the Lumix Leica designed DG Macro ELmarit f2.8 45mm ( 90 mm equivalent ) will provide quite luscious backgrounds when used for portraits or macro images.
If you really want shallow dof with m4/3, consider what the Nokton lenses ( 17.5mm, 25mm, 42.5mm ) with an F 0.95 aperture will offer…..
This image was shot at 140mm at f8, and I find the background not disturbing to my eye - http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/Travel/Utah-Fall-2013/i-GghMh82/0/L/red_leaves_w_fruit-1060295-3-L.jpg
The other factor is the at the shallow bodies of the m4/3 system allows most lenses to be mated to them with an appropriate non-OEM adapter, so one could pursue using Nikon or Canon f1.4 or f1.2 lenses on a m4/3 body for special purposes as well.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin