Wide aperture - Pictures out of focus

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
AnthonyL
Senior MemberPosts: 1,724Gear list
Like?
Re: Wide aperture - Pictures out of focus
In reply to Jizzy, 4 months ago

Well you are on the right track but something still doesn't seem right.  Hopefully someone with a bit more knowledge will come along or maybe repost in the Canon Lens forum where more folk will have that lens.

 AnthonyL's gear list:AnthonyL's gear list
Canon EOS 450D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 18,035Gear list
Like?
Re: Faster shutter speeds........
In reply to Christof21, 4 months ago

Christof21 wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Christof21 wrote:

AnthonyL wrote:

Jizzy wrote:

tedolf wrote:

So, stop down to about f/8 and you will get a DOF of about 8-10 inches.

Now, you have to ask yourself why did you spend so much money for a f/1.8 lens when you really can't use it wide open for the types of photo's you want to shoot!

TEdolph

Yeah, thats what I am asking myself now

Yes - just get a P&S - no probs with DOF there!

Or stop down the lens, same results. This is not a "problem"

There are some situations where you can't stop down. Like where you need a faster shutter speed to avoid subject motion blur, e.g. father/daughter waltz at a wed

You should read articles about equivalence. You can always shoot an "equivalent" picture with the bigger sensor. The opposite is not true.

ding.

The "problem" is that you are paying a lot of money for a fast aperture

You should compare lenses with an equivalent aperture to be fair. With Full Frame for instance, you pay a lot for the body. Not so much for the lenses, it is sometimes even cheaper (considering the equivalent aperture)

that is usable only in very rare circumstances. I think a lot of beginning photographers get "suckered" into paying a lot of $$ for a really fast lens when an f/2.8 lens of the same model would cost a lot less and work just as well in the real world.

Having a fast aperture can make a big difference in the real world ! I have a 23mm on APS-C and I can take advantage of the f1.4 aperture without problems in low light for instance. This is 2 stops better than f2.8. As soon as your subject is a bit distant, the dof increases quickly.

yes, there are definitely situations where having a fast aperture is a huge advantage and that is my point.  I think with a smaller sensor, that large aperture is usable more often than with a larger sensor.  Your point about APS-c is well taken.  I think it is a more usable format than FF.  The problem with most (Nikon/Canon) is that they reserve their best lenses for the FF system and let APS-c be the poor step-child.  The newer formats (4/3, Fuji, etc.) started from scratch and gave those systems their best lenses.

Have a look also at the picture of doss. Is f1.8 a problem ?

It is worth spending a bit of time checking what your lens can do wide open and stopped down a touch. But as pointed out elsewhere the focus confirmation can kick in sooner than you think and not necessarily on what you thought it focussed on. Use static subjects and if you haven't got a tripod then find something to stand the camera on and use a time delay.

Also double check your technique. Need to be very precise and steady.

Tedolph

Tedolph

 tedolf's gear list:tedolf's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
msc1
Senior MemberPosts: 1,461
Like?
Re: Wide aperture - Pictures out of focus
In reply to Jizzy, 4 months ago

Jizzy wrote:

Hi,

Most of my pictures are out of focus when I shoot with a wide aperture with my 85mm 1.8 on a 70d.

I focused on the eye with single point AF.
Did I move too much? Or does the lens have front-/backfocus?

f1.8 1/2000 iso 100

thx for your help

Nothing in the photo is particularly well focused and, at 100%, it almost looks like heavy noise reduction (although there shouldn't be at ISO = 100). The model's left eye is better focused than her right so you are reasonably close to the focus point. It's hard to imagine that  it's massive front focus. You might check for front focus on your deck or kitchen table. If it is big enough to get completely in front of the girl at portrait distances you'll notice it without a lot of fussing.

I don't see signs of hand shake and that seems unlikely at 1/2000s. And it's obvious you haven't processed this by looking at the CA around the hair.

The simplest guess is that the lens isn't all that hot at it's weakest point, i.e., wide open. Most f/1.8 lenses need to be stopped down a bit, say to f/2 or f/2.2.

msc

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Christof21
Senior MemberPosts: 1,231
Like?
Re: Faster shutter speeds........
In reply to tedolf, 4 months ago

tedolf wrote:

Christof21 wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Christof21 wrote:

AnthonyL wrote:

Jizzy wrote:

tedolf wrote:

So, stop down to about f/8 and you will get a DOF of about 8-10 inches.

Now, you have to ask yourself why did you spend so much money for a f/1.8 lens when you really can't use it wide open for the types of photo's you want to shoot!

TEdolph

Yeah, thats what I am asking myself now

Yes - just get a P&S - no probs with DOF there!

Or stop down the lens, same results. This is not a "problem"

There are some situations where you can't stop down. Like where you need a faster shutter speed to avoid subject motion blur, e.g. father/daughter waltz at a wed

You should read articles about equivalence. You can always shoot an "equivalent" picture with the bigger sensor. The opposite is not true.

ding.

The "problem" is that you are paying a lot of money for a fast aperture

You should compare lenses with an equivalent aperture to be fair. With Full Frame for instance, you pay a lot for the body. Not so much for the lenses, it is sometimes even cheaper (considering the equivalent aperture)

that is usable only in very rare circumstances. I think a lot of beginning photographers get "suckered" into paying a lot of $$ for a really fast lens when an f/2.8 lens of the same model would cost a lot less and work just as well in the real world.

Having a fast aperture can make a big difference in the real world ! I have a 23mm on APS-C and I can take advantage of the f1.4 aperture without problems in low light for instance. This is 2 stops better than f2.8. As soon as your subject is a bit distant, the dof increases quickly.

yes, there are definitely situations where having a fast aperture is a huge advantage and that is my point. I think with a smaller sensor, that large aperture is usable more often than with a larger sensor. Your point about APS-c is well taken. I think it is a more usable format than FF. The problem with most (Nikon/Canon) is that they reserve their best lenses for the FF system and let APS-c be the poor step-child. The newer formats (4/3, Fuji, etc.) started from scratch and gave those systems their best lenses.

Instead of "usable", you should use the word limited or restricted... You try to present a disadvantage as if it was an advantage...

Just let each format have their advantages/disadvantages.

Have a look also at the picture of doss. Is f1.8 a problem ?

It is worth spending a bit of time checking what your lens can do wide open and stopped down a touch. But as pointed out elsewhere the focus confirmation can kick in sooner than you think and not necessarily on what you thought it focussed on. Use static subjects and if you haven't got a tripod then find something to stand the camera on and use a time delay.

Also double check your technique. Need to be very precise and steady.

Tedolph

Tedolph

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 18,035Gear list
Like?
Re: Faster shutter speeds........
In reply to Christof21, 4 months ago

Christof21 wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Christof21 wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Christof21 wrote:

AnthonyL wrote:

Jizzy wrote:

tedolf wrote:

So, stop down to about f/8 and you will get a DOF of about 8-10 inches.

Now, you have to ask yourself why did you spend so much money for a f/1.8 lens when you really can't use it wide open for the types of photo's you want to shoot!

TEdolph

Yeah, thats what I am asking myself now

Yes - just get a P&S - no probs with DOF there!

Or stop down the lens, same results. This is not a "problem"

There are some situations where you can't stop down. Like where you need a faster shutter speed to avoid subject motion blur, e.g. father/daughter waltz at a wed

You should read articles about equivalence. You can always shoot an "equivalent" picture with the bigger sensor. The opposite is not true.

ding.

The "problem" is that you are paying a lot of money for a fast aperture

You should compare lenses with an equivalent aperture to be fair. With Full Frame for instance, you pay a lot for the body. Not so much for the lenses, it is sometimes even cheaper (considering the equivalent aperture)

that is usable only in very rare circumstances. I think a lot of beginning photographers get "suckered" into paying a lot of $$ for a really fast lens when an f/2.8 lens of the same model would cost a lot less and work just as well in the real world.

Having a fast aperture can make a big difference in the real world ! I have a 23mm on APS-C and I can take advantage of the f1.4 aperture without problems in low light for instance. This is 2 stops better than f2.8. As soon as your subject is a bit distant, the dof increases quickly.

yes, there are definitely situations where having a fast aperture is a huge advantage and that is my point. I think with a smaller sensor, that large aperture is usable more often than with a larger sensor. Your point about APS-c is well taken. I think it is a more usable format than FF. The problem with most (Nikon/Canon) is that they reserve their best lenses for the FF system and let APS-c be the poor step-child. The newer formats (4/3, Fuji, etc.) started from scratch and gave those systems their best lenses.

Instead of "usable", you should use the word limited or restricted... You try to present a disadvantage as if it was an advantage...

Just let each format have their advantages/disadvantages.

I don't think we have any disagreement here.

Each format has its advantages and disadvantages.

I was simply commenting in the context of the specific picture the OP was trying to take with the  equipment he has.

Have a look also at the picture of doss. Is f1.8 a problem ?

It is worth spending a bit of time checking what your lens can do wide open and stopped down a touch. But as pointed out elsewhere the focus confirmation can kick in sooner than you think and not necessarily on what you thought it focussed on. Use static subjects and if you haven't got a tripod then find something to stand the camera on and use a time delay.

Also double check your technique. Need to be very precise and steady.

Tedolph

Tedolph

Tedolph

 tedolf's gear list:tedolf's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Christof21
Senior MemberPosts: 1,231
Like?
Re: Faster shutter speeds........
In reply to tedolf, 4 months ago

tedolf wrote:

Christof21 wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Christof21 wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Christof21 wrote:

AnthonyL wrote:

Jizzy wrote:

tedolf wrote:

So, stop down to about f/8 and you will get a DOF of about 8-10 inches.

Now, you have to ask yourself why did you spend so much money for a f/1.8 lens when you really can't use it wide open for the types of photo's you want to shoot!

TEdolph

Yeah, thats what I am asking myself now

Yes - just get a P&S - no probs with DOF there!

Or stop down the lens, same results. This is not a "problem"

There are some situations where you can't stop down. Like where you need a faster shutter speed to avoid subject motion blur, e.g. father/daughter waltz at a wed

You should read articles about equivalence. You can always shoot an "equivalent" picture with the bigger sensor. The opposite is not true.

ding.

The "problem" is that you are paying a lot of money for a fast aperture

You should compare lenses with an equivalent aperture to be fair. With Full Frame for instance, you pay a lot for the body. Not so much for the lenses, it is sometimes even cheaper (considering the equivalent aperture)

that is usable only in very rare circumstances. I think a lot of beginning photographers get "suckered" into paying a lot of $$ for a really fast lens when an f/2.8 lens of the same model would cost a lot less and work just as well in the real world.

Having a fast aperture can make a big difference in the real world ! I have a 23mm on APS-C and I can take advantage of the f1.4 aperture without problems in low light for instance. This is 2 stops better than f2.8. As soon as your subject is a bit distant, the dof increases quickly.

yes, there are definitely situations where having a fast aperture is a huge advantage and that is my point. I think with a smaller sensor, that large aperture is usable more often than with a larger sensor. Your point about APS-c is well taken. I think it is a more usable format than FF. The problem with most (Nikon/Canon) is that they reserve their best lenses for the FF system and let APS-c be the poor step-child. The newer formats (4/3, Fuji, etc.) started from scratch and gave those systems their best lenses.

Instead of "usable", you should use the word limited or restricted... You try to present a disadvantage as if it was an advantage...

Just let each format have their advantages/disadvantages.

I don't think we have any disagreement here.

Each format has its advantages and disadvantages.

I was simply commenting in the context of the specific picture the OP was trying to take with the equipment he has.

Ok, no problem, have fun and enjoy your system !

Have a look also at the picture of doss. Is f1.8 a problem ?

It is worth spending a bit of time checking what your lens can do wide open and stopped down a touch. But as pointed out elsewhere the focus confirmation can kick in sooner than you think and not necessarily on what you thought it focussed on. Use static subjects and if you haven't got a tripod then find something to stand the camera on and use a time delay.

Also double check your technique. Need to be very precise and steady.

Tedolph

Tedolph

Tedolph

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
basalsa
Forum MemberPosts: 53
Like?
Re: Wide aperture - Pictures out of focus
In reply to Jizzy, 4 months ago

Ok, did some focus testing today:

BEFORE

AFTER +13 Microadjustment

Assuming focused on "0" you still need to adjust cuz on the chart -1 -2 are clearly sharper than +1 +2
One third on front and two thirds on back of focus point should be nearly as sharp.
Some other folks gave good points a lens starts with 1.4 or 1.8 is sharp at 2.8 and excellent on 4 but what about that already starts at eg 4

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Doss
Senior MemberPosts: 1,728
Like?
Re: No one is saying that it can't be done.....
In reply to tedolf, 4 months ago

tedolf wrote:

just that you have to be very careful.

Absolutely true.

In your fist shot, the subject is small and you were probably about 15 feet away? DOF is exactly 12"; just enough to get the child's head in focus if your focus is spot on.

In the second example (no EXIF data), you are not doing a head and shoulder's shot, you are doing a full body environmental portrait, probably from 25 feet away. DOF is about 3 feet. Here, focus is not as critical.

In the third shot, again here you are not doing a tight head and shoulders shot as in the OP's example. You are backed away and you have just enough DOF. It is an excellent photo BTW, although use of shallow DOF really wasn't necessary here because the background is dark. I can't tell what settings you used because the EXIF data is missing.

My point to the OP was, and I think that many here agreed that for a tight head and shoulders shot, you can't use f/1.8 on an 85mm lens and expect the subject to be in focus. DOF is simply too narrow with a large sensor camera. My further point is that if you want to use that FOV for perspective purposes, and you have some need to shoot wide open (dark environment, subject movement) you are better off with a smaller sensor.

Is that so radical?

TEdolph

Dude! I think you over-think things too much!
Honestly, I just take the shots using the settings which get the shot . And, yes, as an experienced photographer I do think I can use f1.8 occasionally - Not so much for a desired effect, but because - in every one of these shots - the light was limited and I had to shoot fast (they are all candids - And yes, I do find (for me) FF works best in such environments.  I respect your choice to prefer smaller sensors. Each to their own my friend

OK - I know that fact sets these apart from the OP's photo - but I don't think they were trying to get a desired effect,. I think they were just testing out a new lens and wanted to be sure they could get away with using it at f1.8 - which is the point of having a lens with that setting!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 18,035Gear list
Like?
Re: No one is saying that it can't be done.....
In reply to Doss, 4 months ago

Doss wrote:

tedolf wrote:

just that you have to be very careful.

Absolutely true.

In your fist shot, the subject is small and you were probably about 15 feet away? DOF is exactly 12"; just enough to get the child's head in focus if your focus is spot on.

In the second example (no EXIF data), you are not doing a head and shoulder's shot, you are doing a full body environmental portrait, probably from 25 feet away. DOF is about 3 feet. Here, focus is not as critical.

In the third shot, again here you are not doing a tight head and shoulders shot as in the OP's example. You are backed away and you have just enough DOF. It is an excellent photo BTW, although use of shallow DOF really wasn't necessary here because the background is dark. I can't tell what settings you used because the EXIF data is missing.

My point to the OP was, and I think that many here agreed that for a tight head and shoulders shot, you can't use f/1.8 on an 85mm lens and expect the subject to be in focus. DOF is simply too narrow with a large sensor camera. My further point is that if you want to use that FOV for perspective purposes, and you have some need to shoot wide open (dark environment, subject movement) you are better off with a smaller sensor.

Is that so radical?

TEdolph

Dude! I think you over-think things too much!

think so?

Honestly, I just take the shots using the settings which get the shot . And, yes, as an experienced photographer I do think I can use f1.8 occasionally - Not so much for a desired effect, but because - in every one of these shots - the light was limited and I had to shoot fast (they are all candids -

Well, now you have outlined the limited circumstances in which 85mm and f/1.8 is useful, and acknowledged that, "as an experienced photographer" you can use f/1.8 "occasionally".

Here the OP acknowledges that he is a beginner and it is apparent from his photo that he is not in the situation you describe.  So again, my advice to him is that if he wants to take tight head and shoulders shots outdoors in good light, he can't use an f/1.8 85mm lens wide open on a large sensor camera. That is all I am saying.

And yes, I do find (for me) FF works best in such environments.

But it doesn't work well for beginners, or frankly most amateur photographers. And, you pay a lot of $$ for it.  If a beginner can't really make use of it, what is the point of spending all that $$?

I respect your choice to prefer smaller sensors. Each to their own my friend

Well, you know that is nice but really does it help the OP?

OK - I know that fact sets these apart from the OP's photo -

Yes, that is the key.

but I don't think they were trying to get a desired effect,. I think they were just testing out a new lens and wanted to be sure they could get away with using it at f1.8 - which is the point of having a lens with that setting!

And he couldn't. And neither could I, and neither could you in that setting, with that light unless you started using ND filters or something.

Tedolph

 tedolf's gear list:tedolf's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
scorrpio
Senior MemberPosts: 2,991
Like?
Re: Wide aperture - Pictures out of focus
In reply to Jizzy, 4 months ago

Jizzy wrote:

TTMartin wrote:

If you microfocus adjust I would suggest using the DotTune method on a vertical target about the same distance as your model was in the photo.

Ok tried the DotTune Method now. And I got +14 too

Thx for this method!

So, have you tried it out on live targets after that?

Personally, when I use my 50 f/1.4 at f/2.0 and wider, I press the shutter all the way down, without making the half-way stop.    This assures camera will take a shot the moment it has focus.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Doss
Senior MemberPosts: 1,728
Like?
Re: No one is saying that it can't be done.....
In reply to tedolf, 4 months ago

tedolf wrote:

Doss wrote:

But it doesn't work well for beginners, or frankly most amateur photographers. And, you pay a lot of $$ for it. If a beginner can't really make use of it, what is the point of spending all that $$?

Yes...but - Having gone out and bought such a lens the first thing I would suggest to anyone (beginner or otherwise) is run a few tests shots and make sure it is usable wide open - for when you need it.

but I don't think they were trying to get a desired effect,. I think they were just testing out a new lens and wanted to be sure they could get away with using it at f1.8 - which is the point of having a lens with that setting!

And he couldn't. And neither could I, and neither could you in that setting,

Erm - Yes, I most certainly could! Why do you not find this achievable?

with that light unless you started using ND filters or something.

And why bring ND filters into the equation? I'm off! You're making me feel as confused as you sound

Tedolph

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AnthonyL
Senior MemberPosts: 1,724Gear list
Like?
Re: No one is saying that it can't be done.....
In reply to Doss, 4 months ago

Doss wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Doss wrote:

But it doesn't work well for beginners, or frankly most amateur photographers. And, you pay a lot of $$ for it. If a beginner can't really make use of it, what is the point of spending all that $$?

Yes...but - Having gone out and bought such a lens the first thing I would suggest to anyone (beginner or otherwise) is run a few tests shots and make sure it is usable wide open - for when you need it.

Absolutely.  Albeit with a crop camera one of my first shots with the nifty-fifty whilst waiting for the bus home after buying it.  I would hope for at least as good with a better lens.  I also then got quite good results indoors of portraits but it all came to a sad end when it must have got covered by a napkin at a celebration meal and I have seen it since.

 AnthonyL's gear list:AnthonyL's gear list
Canon EOS 450D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 18,035Gear list
Like?
Re: No one is saying that it can't be done.....
In reply to Doss, 4 months ago

Doss wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Doss wrote:

But it doesn't work well for beginners, or frankly most amateur photographers. And, you pay a lot of $$ for it. If a beginner can't really make use of it, what is the point of spending all that $$?

Yes...but - Having gone out and bought such a lens the first thing I would suggest to anyone (beginner or otherwise) is run a few tests shots and make sure it is usable wide open - for when you need it.

Well, I guess I wouldn't go out and buy a lens, especially and expensive one unless I knew it was going to work for what I wanted to do.  DOF tables are not a secret (they used to be supplied with every lens) and are available on the Internet.  Thus, before buying a fancy f/1.8 85mm portrait lens you would think that a person would look at a DOF table and say, "hey, this thing isn't going to work for tight head and shoulder shots wide open-the DOF is too shallow, maybe I would be better off buying an 85mm f.2.8 lens instead and save a few hundred dollars!".

but I don't think they were trying to get a desired effect,. I think they were just testing out a new lens and wanted to be sure they could get away with using it at f1.8 - which is the point of having a lens with that setting!

And he couldn't. And neither could I, and neither could you in that setting,

Erm - Yes, I most certainly could! Why do you not find this achievable?

Because for a tight head and shoulders shot at 10 feet, 85mm, f/1.8 the DOF is exactly 0.28 feet (about 3").   You can not get the entire head of a subject in focus.  Can't.  Period. Look at the DOF tables.

with that light unless you started using ND filters or something.

And why bring ND filters into the equation? I'm off! You're making me feel as confused as you sound

To still use f/1.8 and......oh, forget it.

Tedolph

TEdolph

 tedolf's gear list:tedolf's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Doss
Senior MemberPosts: 1,728
Like?
Re: No one is saying that it can't be done.....
In reply to tedolf, 4 months ago

tedolf wrote:

Because for a tight head and shoulders shot at 10 feet, 85mm, f/1.8 the DOF is exactly 0.28 feet (about 3"). You can not get the entire head of a subject in focus. Can't. Period. Look at the DOF tables.

My friend - If this isn't overthinking things maybe it's just that you have an obsession with tables and numbers. Might I suggest train-spotting as a suitable pastime

OK - I'm pulling your leg...

But do bare in mind those tables are not rule tables! They will not aid your your photography if you adhere to the notion that all of your subject should fall within focus. There is nothing wrong, for example, with limiting focus to the eyes and letting the back of the head drop off from focus.

with that light unless you started using ND filters or something.

And why bring ND filters into the equation? I'm off! You're making me feel as confused as you sound

To still use f/1.8 and.....

....what?

.oh, forget it.

No, no! (curiosity overrules my confusion!)

and.....Still be able to achieve correct exposure by selecting a shutter speed within the camera's range at base ISO? As OP has already done that -  what other reason, pray tell?

Tedolph

TEdolph

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Truthiness
Regular MemberPosts: 122
Like?
Re: DOF too narrow........
In reply to tedolf, 4 months ago

tedolf wrote:

Truthiness wrote:

tedolf wrote:

this is one of the problems with larger sensored cameras. Wide open the DOF is just too shallow to do portrait work.

How can an option be a problem? No one is forcing to shoot wide open, but isn't it good to have a such option?

If you need to shoot wide open (need faster shutter speed, need to shoot at base ISO) it is a useless option.

But that is a condition which is outside the performance envelope of the smaller sensor camera. The big sensor can still do what the small can. And in the case you want to take advantage of the extra full frame has, you have it.

If you stop down FF, you'll get the same image quality (for the same shutter speed) and DOF you get from a smaller format, but if you need more speed, you can open the aperture further, to terriritory the smaller formats can not.

Do you realize that f/2 wide open m43 or APS-C is not the same as f/2 wide open on full frame? f/4 on FF gets the same DOF and with the same shutter speed the same image quality a m43 gets on f/2. But for the cases you need more speed, you still have two stops of space with the FF.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Truthiness
Regular MemberPosts: 122
Like?
Re: A bit biased it seems, or certainly not intellectually honest
In reply to tedolf, 4 months ago

tedolf wrote:

Truthiness wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Jizzy wrote:

tedolf wrote:

So, stop down to about f/8 and you will get a DOF of about 8-10 inches.

Now, you have to ask yourself why did you spend so much money for a f/1.8 lens when you really can't use it wide open for the types of photo's you want to shoot!

TEdolph

Yeah, thats what I am asking myself now

with lenses shot wide open (higher shutter speeds, lower ISO) the u 4/3 format is probably ideal.

No one forces one to shoot wide open. You know, it's perfectly fine to stop down. Typically the optical properties improve then too.

Except when you need the higher shutter speed.

f/4 on FF equals f/2 on m43.

So I can use the same shutter speed on FF with f/4 I can at f/2 on m43.

Your argument is not rational.

Personally I would find m4/3 too limiting for portrait photography.

Why?

It doesn't offer enough separation when the background is not far enough and the subject is not close enough. That is just a personal thing, nothing objective.

There is nothing ideal about m43 in this use case, far from it. Are you sure your personal attachement to m43-system is not clouding your judgement?

My personal attachment is absolutely clouding my judgment. Portrait photography is exactly why I chose the 4/3 format.

4/3 offers ZERO advantage for portrait photography when it comes to image quality. If you think it does, please inform me how (other than IBIS in some cases when the subject is really still and the shutter just has to be slow with enough DOF).

Also, the sensor aspect ratio is a better match for printing than the 3/2 format so you aren't cropping so much.

Are you serious? 3:2 is very common ouput format, certainly more so than 4/3.

It is, but the 3:2 format doesn't match 8" x 10", 11" x 14", 5" x7" or 8.5" x 11" nearly as well as 4/3 does. Those are common print sizes in the U.S.

But so is 3:2. You're cherry picking the print sizes you like. Today all kinds of print ratios are very common. And in the cases you're more interested in not printing, but using a computer screen, 4:3 is hardly optimal.

With the camera you have, f/4 is about as wide open as you can go for a head and shoulders shot and your focus placement has to be perfect.

It is worse with FF if that is any consolation.

Lenses can be stopped down.

Unless you need the higher shutter speed.

But f/4 on FF is the same as f/2 on m43. If f/2 is wide open on both, then only FF can get more shutter speed from that point on.

If you want to shoot wide open portrait length lenses at base ISO, the 4/3 crop factor and aspect ratio is an advantage.

Why you insist wide open? Assuming same f/# Wide open on iPhone is not the same as wide open on FF, is it? Nor is wide open on m43 is not the same as wide open on FF (assuming same f/#).

Aspect ratio is disadvantage for digital output mediums (TV, monitors) for m43, for printouts it's irrelevant as all formats are very widely available.

When you shoot with different formats, do you first decided that "ah, I'll shoot this wide open", regardless of what "wide open" means with the system?

FF is no worse than APS-C

Mostly true.

For portraiture there is nothing APS-C can do, FF can't. On the other hand FF can do more. Thus FF is better for this purpouse.

or your belowed m43 for this kind of use.

Not true. See above.

You offer no logical reason for your argument. The printout-reason isdemonstrably false - I even checkoud out typical US based photolabs and they all offered all kinds of output formats on all sizes. This alone makes you sound like biased for your favorite brand or format.

The "wide open" logic is just silly. Should you fist decide what kind of photo you take, and then choose the appropriate aperture instead of just blindly taking "wide open" which creates different results with different formats.

For the reason FF is better for this job than APS-C it's better for this job than m43.

Tedolph

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Truthiness
Regular MemberPosts: 122
Like?
Re: Wide aperture - Pictures out of focus
In reply to Jizzy, 4 months ago

Focus adjustment doesn't cure the problem. The AF system simply is not accurate enough due to it's operating principle.

Additionally even if the AF seem to be quite accurate on one focusing distance on one light source, it doesn't mean it is when the light is different and focus distance is different.

PDAF (phase detect AF) is wonderfully fast and is great for tracking, but it's inherit problem is slight inaccuracy. For better accuracy you need either to use CDAF (contrast detect AF), if available, or manual focusing.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Truthiness
Regular MemberPosts: 122
Like?
Re: Faster shutter speeds........
In reply to tedolf, 4 months ago

tedolf wrote:

Christof21 wrote:

AnthonyL wrote:

Jizzy wrote:

tedolf wrote:

So, stop down to about f/8 and you will get a DOF of about 8-10 inches.

Now, you have to ask yourself why did you spend so much money for a f/1.8 lens when you really can't use it wide open for the types of photo's you want to shoot!

TEdolph

Yeah, thats what I am asking myself now

Yes - just get a P&S - no probs with DOF there!

Or stop down the lens, same results. This is not a "problem"

There are some situations where you can't stop down. Like where you need a faster shutter speed to avoid subject motion blur, e.g. father/daughter waltz at a wedding.

You can always stop the FF down 2 stops compared to your beloved m43.

The "problem" is that you are paying a lot of money for a fast aperture that is usable only in very rare circumstances.

Nonsense. I use sub-f/2 all the time. And I manual focus. And I get very good hitrate. I love to have that option.

I think a lot of beginning photographers get "suckered" into paying a lot of $$ for a really fast lens when an f/2.8 lens of the same model would cost a lot less and work just as well in the real world.

This is of course just your opinion, and often wildly wrong. I am beginning to feel that you were "sueckered" into m43 and now feel you have to defend your purchase by belittleing other systems and people who buy them.

Lots of people like to use at apertures not achievable on m43 - loads of perfectly fine images prove that all over the internet.

It is worth spending a bit of time checking what your lens can do wide open and stopped down a touch. But as pointed out elsewhere the focus confirmation can kick in sooner than you think and not necessarily on what you thought it focussed on. Use static subjects and if you haven't got a tripod then find something to stand the camera on and use a time delay.

Also double check your technique. Need to be very precise and steady.

Tedolph

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Aberaeron
Senior MemberPosts: 2,225Gear list
Like?
Re: Wide aperture - Pictures out of focus
In reply to Jizzy, 4 months ago

I haven't read all the replies and don't know the camera, but if this was shot in jpeg, I would suspect that it was also shot in some specific shooting style or other, such as 'soft focus'.

 Aberaeron's gear list:Aberaeron's gear list
Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS1 Nikon Coolpix P500 Fujifilm X20 Nikon Coolpix S32 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Truthiness
Regular MemberPosts: 122
Like?
Re: No one is saying that it can't be done.....
In reply to tedolf, 4 months ago

tedolf wrote:

Doss wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Doss wrote:

But it doesn't work well for beginners, or frankly most amateur photographers. And, you pay a lot of $$ for it. If a beginner can't really make use of it, what is the point of spending all that $$?

Yes...but - Having gone out and bought such a lens the first thing I would suggest to anyone (beginner or otherwise) is run a few tests shots and make sure it is usable wide open - for when you need it.

Well, I guess I wouldn't go out and buy a lens, especially and expensive one unless I knew it was going to work for what I wanted to do. DOF tables are not a secret (they used to be supplied with every lens) and are available on the Internet.

You can also compare systems by just taking advantage of the crop-factors.

Thus, before buying a fancy f/1.8 85mm portrait lens you would think that a person would look at a DOF table and say, "hey, this thing isn't going to work for tight head and shoulder shots wide open-the DOF is too shallow, maybe I would be better off buying an 85mm f.2.8 lens instead and save a few hundred dollars!".

Would you point out to me how many 85/2.8 lenses there are on the market which cost about 100 dollars or 200 dollars? 85mm f/1.8 lenses from Canon and Nikon are inexpensive yet optically very good. The CaNikon lenses in question cost 400-500 dollars.

The m43 45mm f/1.8, a two stops slower lens that the above FF lenses, costs 350 bucks.

The 42.5/1.2 Leica/Panasonic is still a stop slower, yet costs 1500 bucks...

And you know, some people avtually shoot multiple kinds of subjects and multiple kinds of images, not just passport shots. I often shoot at f/2 and faster on FF without any DOF issues.

but I don't think they were trying to get a desired effect,. I think they were just testing out a new lens and wanted to be sure they could get away with using it at f1.8 - which is the point of having a lens with that setting!

And he couldn't. And neither could I, and neither could you in that setting,

Erm - Yes, I most certainly could! Why do you not find this achievable?

Because for a tight head and shoulders shot at 10 feet, 85mm, f/1.8 the DOF is exactly 0.28 feet (about 3"). You can not get the entire head of a subject in focus. Can't. Period. Look at the DOF tables.

And maybe you don't want to get the entire head in focus because most of it is not visible in the image anyhow... often all one needs is the closest eye to be in focus. Or the fact,not the back of the head

And that DOF depends on the output size btw, so it's not "exactly 0.28 feet". And please try to use metric units, after all we're no more in the middle ages

with that light unless you started using ND filters or something.

And why bring ND filters into the equation? I'm off! You're making me feel as confused as you sound

To still use f/1.8 and......oh, forget it.

You don't need any more ND filters on FF f/1.8 than on m43 f/1.8. Light per area is the same, light per photo differs by factor of four.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads