the 45mm doesn't provide shallow enough DoF... [image + shooting notes]

... or maybe it does.

Shot wide open at f/1.8, I find this head & torso shot to have a plenty shallow depth-of-field while still providing enough background information to place to subject in context. And the in-focus area is deep enough to cover the whole subject (eyes have pin-point focus while ears are slightly fuzzy in 100% view in Lightroom).
A lot of my paid work is on-location and environmental portraiture. This image is a preliminary proof from a session done with a legal scholar and author to be used for his next book (subject: the 'virtual Silk Road" of internet commerce).

Shooting notes:

• Camera: Olympus E-M5
  
• Lens: Olympus M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8 shot wide open
  
• ISO 200. 1/200 sec. exposure
• Two remote flashes triggered in manual RC mode with the clip-on accessory flash: a FL-50R with shoot-through umbrella at camera right as the key light and a bare FL-36R attached to bridge railing behind and to subject right as an accent light.
• The tiny 45mm is completely non-intimidating for most subjects, and the E-M5 (and other Oly m4/3 cameras with the feature) works great using the near-eye feature of face-detect to nail focus and let me "focus" instead on subject connection and framing. For me, it's a really unbeatable portrait combination.
  

--
"If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself." - George Orwell "Politics and the English Language"
"Unfortunately, in digital photography a lot of people are seeing pixels, not photographs ... Everyone together now: it's not the pixels. Sing it with me." - Thom Hogan
"If you pick up a camera with any sort of serious intent, you will at least occasionally need to use a flash. Done deal. Lock solid, Take it to the bank." - Joe McNally

Sure.  It does the same job as 90mm f/3.5 on FF or 60mm f/2.5 on APS-C.  If you need more blur, get the 75 / 1.8, presuming the longer perspective is desirable and you have the room to frame it.

If I end up getting an EM5, the 45 / 1.8 and 75 / 1.8 will both be "must have" lenses for me.

So are you seeking the entertainment this time? I dont see any mention of FF until you bring it up.

Abraham

--
“You don’t take a photograph, you make it.” -Ansel Adams
blog.alatchinphotography(dot)com

Information, photography, or entertainment -- I'm good with all three.  Seems you're interested in the latter.

But, yes, I did bring up FF -- and APS-C.  The reason was that the OP said:

the 45mm doesn't provide shallow enough DoF, or maybe it does

Well, "shallow enough" compared to what?  Another mFT lens?  Another format?  So, I went with the latter, and commented on what it is like compared to another format, and also introduced the concept of blur as a function of perspective and focal length, as separate from the blur associated with a shallow DOF.

Still, this must all be terribly boring to you, as you seem more interested in finding an entertainment angle to all this.  Apologies for not being more to your liking on this point, but, if you wish, you can say something "creative" in a reply, and maybe I can run with it.

Why did you leave NIkon1 owners out too?

That's plain mean.

Everyone, knows more DOF is always better so why should those lucky so and so's with their 2.7 crop get any extra attention

Jim

I was including what I believed were the most common digital formats for DSLRs and mirrorless. But, sure, if you like -- here's some shallow DOF from a compact, if you like:

Canon G1 @ 7mm, f / 4, 1/320, ISO 50



Not a head and shoulders portrait, I admit, but an example of shallow DOF from a smaller format, still.

Does this satisfy your need for "entertainment", or were you looking for something more?  Let me know.

The DPreview galleries tend to butcher any images making anything beyond composition hard to determine.

I find that the "original" version at the largest size looks good without the DPReview image quality tax applied.

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

I think comparison to other systems is implied in my post. Then again, keeping fingers crossed this doesn't turn into another 'equivalence' battle.

For what I do, f/1.8 on 45mm m4/3 is plenty shallow. Even f/4.0 provides more than enough subject isolation many times.

--
"If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself." - George Orwell "Politics and the English Language"
"Unfortunately, in digital photography a lot of people are seeing pixels, not photographs ... Everyone together now: it's not the pixels. Sing it with me." - Thom Hogan
"If you pick up a camera with any sort of serious intent, you will at least occasionally need to use a flash. Done deal. Lock solid, Take it to the bank." - Joe McNally

Yeah, the default smaller display size doesn't look great. The "original" size looks fine. No worse or better than what the Facebook display engine generates.

--
"If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself." - George Orwell "Politics and the English Language"
"Unfortunately, in digital photography a lot of people are seeing pixels, not photographs ... Everyone together now: it's not the pixels. Sing it with me." - Thom Hogan
"If you pick up a camera with any sort of serious intent, you will at least occasionally need to use a flash. Done deal. Lock solid, Take it to the bank." - Joe McNally

You may want to hold out on that 45mm f/1.8 to see how the forthcoming Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.2 does. An 85mm f/2.4 equivalent sounds pretty nice to me...

--
--Mike

With the Nikon 1, according to Sony, being the world's largest selling mirrorless system, and the RX100 (mirrorless, but not IL), Three Thirds is one of the most common digital formats.

--
Bob

this is really done very well, from the lighting, to the background selection to the pose, degree f background blur and timing.

Everything came together just right.

I see a lot of portrait work on this forum but this is one of the few occasions I have seen it done right.

Also thank you for posting detailed notes on how you did it.

This is exaclty how posts should be done as well.

Question: did you have the FL-36 set up as a rim light or more as a side light?

And how many shots did you have to take to get this one?

Tedolph

more blur.  This is exactly right.  Enough to separate the subject from the background, but not so much as to loose the environmental quality of the portrait.

Perfect as is.

Tedolph

I think it does. A 75mm f/1.8 would give you more blur (although a different perspective if you wanted the same amount of the subject in the frame).

Personally I think it's an excellent portrait, and I wouldn't want any more blur on the background than this. With more blur, there would be no hint that your subject is standing on a bridge. It might just end up looking like a messy background, but the fact that I can see that it is a bridge is a good thing I think. It's a location that makes sense for a book titled "Virtual Silk Road," because the bridge is an attractive metaphor for technology that makes virtual commerce possible. You used shallow depth of field to isolate the subject, but you also left the background distinguishable enough to make a good environmental portrait with context. Well done!

Sean

Yes, he's caught DM's features very well 

--
Bob

The largest size seems to be 1024pixels wide which certainly does not allow for any critical determination of sharpness or detail . I like the composition and choice of  B&W  for the subject

Jim

Good picture, and some comments.

In the old days I used to use 100mm/2.8 lens for half body portraits. That translates to 50mm/1.4 for m4/3. The closest lens I tried was old G.Zuiko 40mm/1.4, which IMHO blurs background better and produces more mellow bokeh. Highly recommend it.

Regarding lighting, I found a gentle 3 shot +/-1 stop exposure fusion to have a similar effect as a fill flash, and it's greatly simplifies the setting.

Thanks Tedolf! But where's my "great photo, thanks for posting!™" award? : )

I think I'd call it more of a rim light, but not the kind where it's directly behind the subject - probably about 45 degrees to the side and back. Provides for a bit of modeling on the subject's temple and cheekbones on the right side (camera left). I turned that flash intensity up and down during the shoot (from the camera body - easy in RC manual mode), and this particular image was a more mellow version of that strobe.

I did a variety of compositions all at about the same subject distance, but moving a little side to side and up and down, working with the bridge elements and portrait vs. landscape orientations. Looking at my proofs, I have about 20 or so total with that lighting taken over the course of about 5 minutes total (not including setup). I like to a get a variety of expressions (even if just subtle variations) and framings for the client to choose from.

--
"If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself." - George Orwell "Politics and the English Language"
"Unfortunately, in digital photography a lot of people are seeing pixels, not photographs ... Everyone together now: it's not the pixels. Sing it with me." - Thom Hogan
"If you pick up a camera with any sort of serious intent, you will at least occasionally need to use a flash. Done deal. Lock solid, Take it to the bank." - Joe McNally