MFT Users: Do you miss the shallower depth-of-field of bigger sensor cameras?

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,178
Like?
Round highlights.
In reply to Jacques Cornell, 6 months ago

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Superzoom2 wrote:

Wow, thank you for all the thoughtful and personal responses. I suspect I will eventually buy some fast primes, but I am trying to convince myself that I will not end up spending too much on switching to a MFT system in the long run. Cost is a concern. Flexibility is a concern. I mostly want the OM-D E-M10 as a smaller travel camera, rather than taking my T3i with 17-55 or 18-200.

Someone stated that to achieve an equivalent degree of background blur, MFT has to be opened up a stop compared to APS-C. Is that true, or is it less than one stop?

That's about right. MFT at f2.8 gives about the same DoF as f4 on APS-C and f5.6 on FF. Shallow DoF junkies will want super fast primes on FF. For me, 100mm at f2.8 (equivalent to 200mm at f5.6 on FF) yields sufficiently pleasing bokeh for podium shots and portraits. On FF, f5.6 was always my optimal portrait aperture. With MFT, I get the same DoF at f2.8, and I get the nice round blurred highlights created by a wide open aperture.

Indeed you have a fine point there.  Fortunately, newer lenses for FF are coming with rounded aperture blades.

MFT glass generally performs very well wide open, more so than my Canon glass.

I would say to simply stop down, but you have a valid point about the round highlights when stopped down.  Fortunately, the newer FF lenses have addressed this issue.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
NopeNew
Yes.New
Hmm.New
YesNew
YesNew
NoNew
YesNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow