Wide aperture - Pictures out of focus

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
Jizzy
New MemberPosts: 7
Like?
Re: Wide aperture - Pictures out of focus
In reply to Aberaeron, 4 months ago

Aberaeron wrote:

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'.

Nope, shot in RAW (no picture style), exported OOC with LR.

scorrpio wrote:

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.

I use back-button focus, I always press the shutter all the way down.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 17,914Gear list
Like?
Huh?
In reply to Truthiness, 4 months ago

Truthiness wrote:

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.

An Olympus OM-D EM-5 can't shoot wide open at base ISO?

The big sensor can still do what the small can.

It can't.  It can't shoot a tight head and shoulders shot with an 85mm lens wide open at 10' because the DOF is less than 3".

A 4/3 sensor camera can  (45mm lens, f/1.8 focused @ ten feet DOF = 10 inches.

Look at a DOF table.

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)

????? how are you going to get the same image quality if you need 1/125 sec. shutter speed to freeze the bride walking down the isle but you want to use base ISO for a variety of reasons?

If you use a FF DSLR you are going to be shooting at 1/30 sec. to get the same DOF as on the 4/3 sensor.

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.

And once you open up the aperture your DOF shrinks and parts of your shot are going to be OOF.

Do you realize that f/2 wide open m43 or APS-C is not the same as f/2 wide open on full frame?

That is exactly my point!  DOF is greater on the 4/3 sensor at the same aperture/shutter speed combination.

f/4 on FF gets the same DOF and with the same shutter speed

No, not the same shutter speed.  You would have to change your ISO on the FF camera.

the same image quality a m43 gets on f/2.

It is not the same image quality if you use the same aperture, same ISO and slower shutter speed if the subject is moving!

But for the cases you need more speed, you still have two stops of space with the FF.

Not unless you change your ISO by two stops.

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
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 17,914Gear list
Like?
exposure.....
In reply to Truthiness, 4 months ago

Truthiness wrote:

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.

For DOF purposes yes.  That is my point.

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

This is absurd.  The exposure value is different by two stops at the same shutter speed.

The only way you can do this, and keep the shutter speed the same is to increase ISO on the FF camera by two stops.

Your argument is not rational.

There is something very fundamental you do not understand about exposure

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.

Look at some DOF tables for portrait FOV lenses for the two formats (say 85mm for the FF, and 45mm for the 4/3 sensor) and see which one has the more usable DOF profile.

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).

Good God, do you have the capacity to follow an argument? DOF is part of image quality.  Did you see the OP's original picture.  You can not get the full head, front to back in focus on a tight head and shoulders shot using a FF camera at ten feet with an 85mm lens at f/1.8.  The DOF is only 3 inches.

What about that are you incapable of understanding?

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.

Those are the standard print sizes in the U.S. The only print size in the U.S. that matches a 3:2 aspect ratio is 4" x 6" (hardly an enthusiast size print) and 20" x 30", which hardly anybody prints on a regular basis.

Today all kinds of print ratios are very common.

Really? Have you ever worked at photo print shop?  Do you have any idea what size the most common large print is?

I will save you the research: in the U.S. it is 8" x 10".  In the UK it is A4.

And in the cases you're more interested in not printing, but using a computer screen, 4:3 is hardly optimal.

The vast majority of computer screens actually in use today is 4:3.  The next most popular size is 16:9 which matches neither 4/3 or 3:2.

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.

Except you can't use f/2 on a FF for a tight head and shoulders shot at 10 feet with an 85mm lens.

The DOF is too narrow.

How many times do we have to go over this?

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?

To get a faster shutter speed.

Please, try to keep up!

Assuming same f/# Wide open on iPhone is not the same as wide open on FF, is it?

No it isn't.  That is the point I am making!

Nor is wide open on m43 is not the same as wide open on FF (assuming same f/#).

Yes, finally you are getting it!

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

Depends on your TV.  My Sharp Equos LCD TV is 4:3.

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?

Yes, if you are in a dark environment and need the light or if you want to shoot at base ISO.

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.

See above, I am not going to repeat it again.

The printout-reason isdemonstrably false -

why?

I even checkoud out typical US based photolabs and they all offered all kinds of output formats on all sizes.

Tell me what these U.S. 3:2 print out formats are, other than 4x6 and 20x30?

I will give you a hint.  York Photo is the largest photo printer in the U.S.

This alone makes you sound like biased for your favorite brand or format.

The "wide open" logic is just silly.

Now I am not following you.  The maximum aperture of a lens is often the first thing a photographer considers after deciding on a focal length for purchase.

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.

Lord.

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

Except that it isn't.  Just like medium format is no longer superior for portraits over FF once FF resolution became high enough for good large prints.  Almost no on is using medium format for portrait work at the large commercial portrait studios (e.g. Yuen Lui) anymore.  First of all, it is too expensive, and by using larger apertures possible with the 35mm format you don't have to use such powerful lighting, etc.

If it ever becomes necessary to replace the lenses, I wouldn't be surprised if commercial studio's switch to APS-c or 4/3 sensors.  The real problem with APS-c is that the best lenses are still made for FF format.

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
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 17,914Gear list
Like?
Sigh........
In reply to Truthiness, 4 months ago

Truthiness 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 wedding.

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

Ok, now what just happened to your shutter speed?

Went from 1/125 to 1/30 sec., didn't it?

What if 1/30 isn't fast enough?

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.

Sigh, see above.

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.

Sigh, see above.

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

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
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 17,914Gear list
Like?
Less than $300.00.....
In reply to Truthiness, 4 months ago

Truthiness wrote:

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.

We are assuming that the OP already has a camera and is now looking for a lens. Obviously that was the OP's situation here where he was trying out his new lens and was surprised by what it couldn't do!

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?

Sony:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/731708-REG/Sony_SAL85F28_85mm_f_2_8_SAM_Mid_range.html

Less than $300.0 and that is new. Used it is less than $200.00

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-FD-85mm-2-8-Soft-Focus-EDMIKA-EOS-EF-lens-mount-conversion-adapter-kit-/171264667773?pt=US_Lens_Adapters_Mounts_Tubes&hash=item27e02b707d

Nikon:

$99.00

There are many others you can find, I will leave the exercise for the reader.

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.

It is exactly the same maximum aperture, not two stops "slower".

Please, F-stops are the mathematical ratio of focal length to lens diameter.

The 42.5/1.2 Leica/Panasonic is still a stop slower,

No, it is one stop faster.

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.

so do others, do you want a prize?

Let's get back on topic.  We are talking specifically about the image the OP tried to take.

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

Oh, please.

Now you are just changing the issue.

Let's stay on topic-the OP's posted photo.

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

Not if the ears are out of focus.  If you have a paying client and you give them a photo like the OP took they are going to be extremely dissatisfied!

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

Really, just check the DOF tables.

What are you going to do, stand 12 feet away from an 8" x 10" print?

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.

forget it, I don't want to explain it to you.  It is just going to get you off on a tangent.

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: 1,726
Like?
Try refocusing on what matters
In reply to tedolf, 4 months ago

tedolf wrote:

Good God, do you have the capacity to follow an argument?

I don't understand either (As I alluded to in my previous post). I'll try asking you again...

DOF is part of image quality.

DOF is indeed part of image quality aesthetic appeal, but in it's shallowness as much as it's depth

Did you see the OP's original picture. You can not get the full head, front to back in focus on a tight head and shoulders shot using a FF camera at ten feet with an 85mm lens at f/1.8.

No, you can't. But who on earth wrote in your rule book that it's necessary (let alone desirable) to have the full head, front to back, in focus?

The DOF is only 3 inches.

Yep - 3 inches of glorious crisp focus surrounded to the front and rear by beautiful soft bokeh? Having that option is one reason I use FF.

What about that are you incapable of understanding?

Tedolf - I frequently see you making good and valid points, and giving great advice on so many other posts. But your DOF chart obsession on this thread is doing you no favours! I recommend you stop worrying about having everything in focus and concentrate on getting the important bits in focus

Take care,

Doss

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 17,914Gear list
Like?
Well, if we start off with fundemenatally different presumtions...
In reply to Doss, 4 months ago

Doss wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Good God, do you have the capacity to follow an argument?

I don't understand either (As I alluded to in my previous post). I'll try asking you again...

we will never come to an agreement.  Also, I apologize for getting snippy.

DOF is part of image quality.

DOF is indeed part of image quality aesthetic appeal, but in it's shallowness as much as it's depth

This is where we have a fundamental disagreement that leads to everything else.  If you are OK with the OP's photo then you are right and I am wrong.

However, clearly the OP was not happy with it and neither would be most clients.

Did you see the OP's original picture. You can not get the full head, front to back in focus on a tight head and shoulders shot using a FF camera at ten feet with an 85mm lens at f/1.8.

No, you can't. But who on earth wrote in your rule book that it's necessary

Custom in the art, custom in the industry, client expectations, common understanding, etc.

(let alone desirable) to have the full head, front to back, in focus?

The DOF is only 3 inches.

Yep - 3 inches of glorious crisp focus surrounded to the front and rear by beautiful soft bokeh? Having that option is one reason I use FF.

Good luck with your photography business (not intended to be snippy, just making a point that your view about super shallow DOF  is not generally shared by most).

What about that are you incapable of understanding?

this was uncalled for-sorry.  I suspect that you actually do understand.

Tedolf - I frequently see you making good and valid points, and giving great advice on so many other posts. But your DOF chart obsession on this thread is doing you no favours! I recommend you stop worrying about having everything in focus and concentrate on getting the important bits in focus

Take care,

Doss

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: 1,726
Like?
This is fact, not presumption....
In reply to tedolf, 4 months ago

tedolf wrote:

Doss wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Good God, do you have the capacity to follow an argument?

I don't understand either (As I alluded to in my previous post). I'll try asking you again...

we will never come to an agreement.

Aye, but there's nowt wrong with trying to express our views!

Also, I apologize for getting snippy.

Well - seems more like 'passion' to me! (although I'm not taking it personally as it wasn't directed at me! I just jumped in on your argument)

DOF is part of image quality.

DOF is indeed part of image quality aesthetic appeal, but in it's shallowness as much as it's depth

This is where we have a fundamental disagreement that leads to everything else. If you are OK with the OP's photo then you are right and I am wrong.

I still assume OP took this as a test shot rather than an attempt to take a 'good' photo.

However, clearly the OP was not happy with it and neither would be most clients.

Did you see the OP's original picture. You can not get the full head, front to back in focus on a tight head and shoulders shot using a FF camera at ten feet with an 85mm lens at f/1.8.

No, you can't. But who on earth wrote in your rule book that it's necessary

Custom in the art, custom in the industry, client expectations, common understanding, etc.

Hold on - Personal opinions aside - Now you're saying it's 'customary', suggesting commonplace, to take portraits with all of subject in focus?

Quick google search (beautiful portrait photos): x3 shots selected randomly from first 10 hits =

(c) Hannes-Caspar-Henriette

(c) Charles Hildreth

Source: Shre Design

I'm sure I could randomly repeat any similar image searches, I could just flip open any magazine, or peep on pinterest, or a fashion or portraiture website, and see that shallow-DOF portraits are very much the accepted standard. It's not what YOU have to do. But you're really missing an opportunity if you do think you must adhere to the idea that front-to-back must be within focus. I'm frankly quite dismayed that you have not frequently noticed pictures like the three above before?

(let alone desirable) to have the full head, front to back, in focus?

The DOF is only 3 inches.

Yep - 3 inches of glorious crisp focus surrounded to the front and rear by beautiful soft bokeh? Having that option is one reason I use FF.

Good luck with your photography business (not intended to be snippy, just making a point that your view about super shallow DOF is not generally shared by most).

What about that are you incapable of understanding?

this was uncalled for-sorry. I suspect that you actually do understand.

Tedolf - I frequently see you making good and valid points, and giving great advice on so many other posts. But your DOF chart obsession on this thread is doing you no favours! I recommend you stop worrying about having everything in focus and concentrate on getting the important bits in focus

Take care,

Doss

Tedolph

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 17,914Gear list
Like?
Proof....
In reply to Doss, 4 months ago

Doss wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Doss wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Good God, do you have the capacity to follow an argument?

I don't understand either (As I alluded to in my previous post). I'll try asking you again...

we will never come to an agreement.

Aye, but there's nowt wrong with trying to express our views!

Also, I apologize for getting snippy.

Well - seems more like 'passion' to me! (although I'm not taking it personally as it wasn't directed at me! I just jumped in on your argument)

DOF is part of image quality.

DOF is indeed part of image quality aesthetic appeal, but in it's shallowness as much as it's depth

This is where we have a fundamental disagreement that leads to everything else. If you are OK with the OP's photo then you are right and I am wrong.

I still assume OP took this as a test shot rather than an attempt to take a 'good' photo.

However, clearly the OP was not happy with it and neither would be most clients.

Did you see the OP's original picture. You can not get the full head, front to back in focus on a tight head and shoulders shot using a FF camera at ten feet with an 85mm lens at f/1.8.

No, you can't. But who on earth wrote in your rule book that it's necessary

Custom in the art, custom in the industry, client expectations, common understanding, etc.

Hold on - Personal opinions aside - Now you're saying it's 'customary', suggesting commonplace, to take portraits with all of subject in focus?

Quick google search (beautiful portrait photos): x3 shots selected randomly from first 10 hits =

(c) Hannes-Caspar-Henriette

(c) Charles Hildreth

Source: Shre Design

I'm sure I could randomly repeat any similar image searches, I could just flip open any magazine, or peep on pinterest, or a fashion or portraiture website, and see that shallow-DOF portraits are very much the accepted standard. It's not what YOU have to do. But you're really missing an opportunity if you do think you must adhere to the idea that front-to-back must be within focus. I'm frankly quite dismayed that you have not frequently noticed pictures like the three above before?

I don't like the first two precisely because the DOF is too shallow.  In the first shot the leading shoulder is OOF and the trailing eyebrow and rear of rear eye socket.  As I said in a previous post, this was at one time a "desired look" in advertising, but is not generally acceptable for conventional portraiture.  The second shot is a good example of why this is problematic.  The girl's eye's and mouth are the only things in focus, the back of her head is OOF.  This creates the impression that her face is bigger than it really is causing a perceived distortion as if a wide angle lens was used.  Again, for Madison Avenue this might be OK but if you ran a portrait studio like that you would go broke.

Now the third one I really do like (quite a lady) but I suspect that the DOF is deeper in this shot than you think it is.  I bet it was not shot wide open.

(let alone desirable) to have the full head, front to back, in focus?

The DOF is only 3 inches.

Yep - 3 inches of glorious crisp focus surrounded to the front and rear by beautiful soft bokeh? Having that option is one reason I use FF.

Good luck with your photography business (not intended to be snippy, just making a point that your view about super shallow DOF is not generally shared by most).

What about that are you incapable of understanding?

this was uncalled for-sorry. I suspect that you actually do understand.

Tedolf - I frequently see you making good and valid points, and giving great advice on so many other posts. But your DOF chart obsession on this thread is doing you no favours! I recommend you stop worrying about having everything in focus and concentrate on getting the important bits in focus

Take care,

Doss

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
Truthiness
Regular MemberPosts: 122
Like?
The same exposure causes different effect on different formats
In reply to tedolf, 4 months ago

tedolf wrote:

Truthiness wrote:

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.

For DOF purposes yes. That is my point.

For all relevant poins. Exact same light is being captured, exact same DOF, exact same SNR (assuming same read noise and QE).

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

This is absurd. The exposure value is different by two stops at the same shutter speed.

Who cares what the exposure will be? The same exposure causes different effect on different formats, so why insist the same exposure?

The only way you can do this, and keep the shutter speed the same is to increase ISO on the FF camera by two stops.

Ok, where's the problem? Do you know what ISO is and why that is irrelevant?

Your argument is not rational.

There is something very fundamental you do not understand about exposure

I understand exposure perfectly. It's got three parameters - ambient light, aperture number and exposure time. However, using the same parameters the results will be different with different systems.

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.

Look at some DOF tables for portrait FOV lenses for the two formats (say 85mm for the FF, and 45mm for the 4/3 sensor) and see which one has the more usable DOF profile.

According to basic laws of optics 45mm on 4/3 sensor has almost identical DOF to 90mm lens of FF when the FF lens has been stopped down two more stops (ie. f/2 on 4/3 gives the DOF of f/4 on FF) . This is not rocket science.

If your DOF tables disagree, you should see what's wrong with them.

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).

Good God, do you have the capacity to follow an argument? DOF is part of image quality.

So far you've been preoccupied with DOF. Then I mentioned that stopped down lens tend to work better than wide open one, so FF has an advantage.

Did you see the OP's original picture. You can not get the full head, front to back in focus on a tight head and shoulders shot using a FF camera at ten feet with an 85mm lens at f/1.8. The DOF is only 3 inches.

So now it's only about DOF again? Do you not understand that he could have stopped down to f/3.6? That would equal m43 42.5mm f/1.8. Or is stopping down impossible?

What about that are you incapable of understanding?

Your lack of logic.

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.

Those are the standard print sizes in the U.S.

The only print size in the U.S. that matches a 3:2 aspect ratio is 4" x 6" (hardly an enthusiast size print) and 20" x 30", which hardly anybody prints on a regular basis.

Rubbish. You know I have an internet connection and I have checked that to be false. So please stop spreading your nonsense.

Today all kinds of print ratios are very common.

Really? Have you ever worked at photo print shop? Do you have any idea what size the most common large print is?

I can use the internet and I've checked out lots of print labs. They all print to all kinds of aspect ratios. There is no advantage to any single aspect ratio. Unless you view on the telly or computer screen when 16:9 ratio is often best - that's far from 4:3.

I will save you the research: in the U.S. it is 8" x 10". In the UK it is A4.

Prove of this? Link?

And what is "large size" - to me not A4 - and btw, A4 is not the most common in Europe as people print in the aspect ratio they shoot whenever possible and nowdays all the ratios are available.

And who cares what most printed is. What matters is what you can print.

And in the cases you're more interested in not printing, but using a computer screen, 4:3 is hardly optimal.

The vast majority of computer screens actually in use today is 4:3.

Are you on drugs? Or in the '90s? They're almost all 16:9 nowdays with some odd 16:10's there. 4:3 is almost unused nowdays. Just like the TVs, the big screens you can watch soap operas and photograpsh.

The next most popular size is 16:9 which matches neither 4/3 or 3:2.

16:9 is heck of a lot close to 3:2 than 4:3.

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.

Except you can't use f/2 on a FF for a tight head and shoulders shot at 10 feet with an 85mm lens.

The DOF is too narrow.

Can I not use it at f/4?

How many times do we have to go over this?

So many times you understand that lenses can be stopped down.

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?

To get a faster shutter speed.

Ok, do you not understand that f/4 on FF will collect the same photons m4/3 collects at f/2, thus they can use the same shutter speed and get the same noise levels.

Please, try to keep up!

Please try to understand what limits the shutter speed.

Assuming same f/# Wide open on iPhone is not the same as wide open on FF, is it?

No it isn't. That is the point I am making!

No, that is not the point you're trying to make.

Nor is wide open on m43 is not the same as wide open on FF (assuming same f/#).

Yes, finally you are getting it!

Odd, how you insist that both formats should be used 'wide open'... where is your logic?

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

Depends on your TV. My Sharp Equos LCD TV is 4:3.

Must be old. Seriously, whendo you live? In 2014 it is difficult to find TV's which are not 16:9, well over 90% of all computer displays are 16:9, both laptop screens and monitors.

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?

Yes, if you are in a dark environment and need the light or if you want to shoot at base ISO.

But you get a diffeent iimage with FF and m43? Do you not understand that you will get essentially identical image with FF f/4 to m43 f/2 if the shutter speed is the same. Sure you may need to use ISO 400 instead of ISO 100, but the image quality will be essentially identical (same amount of light will be collected).

So it is not intellectually honest to claim that m43 is better because you use different minimum IQ requirement for each 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.

See above, I am not going to repeat it again.

Good, as there is no logical reason for your argument.

Do you think that m43 with f/2, 1/200, produces a different image from FF with f/4, 1/200 if equivivalent focal lengths are used (eg. 45mm vs,. 90mm)? If not, then why you insist that FF can't be stopped down to f/4?

The printout-reason isdemonstrably false -

why?

I even checkoud out typical US based photolabs and they all offered all kinds of output formats on all sizes.

Tell me what these U.S. 3:2 print out formats are, other than 4x6 and 20x30?

Do I really have to go throuh all the zillion places people can print?

I will give you a hint. York Photo is the largest photo printer in the U.S.

And the only one too I guess. Interestingly they seem to have less options than the average el-cheapo in my country.

Let's see, Youk Photo: 4x6, 12x18, 20x30, 24x36.

I googled for photo lab usa and coult not find your favorite in the top three pages, and won't look further.

Why shold I order photos from a place which orders so few options? There seems to be many more popular photolabs with much wider variety.

This alone makes you sound like biased for your favorite brand or format.

The "wide open" logic is just silly.

Now I am not following you. The maximum aperture of a lens is often the first thing a photographer considers after deciding on a focal length for purchase.

So if you take a hot on m43 with f/2 you won't consider a FF lens of f/4?

You insist on shooting wide open for illogical whatever reason.

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.

Lord.

No, a commoner.

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

Except that it isn't.

Or course it is.

Just like medium format is no longer superior for portraits over FF once FF resolution became high enough for good large prints.

Ah, so "good enough" is now the arbitrary limit you define in some arbitrary way and anything that offers more quality than that is not relevant. I see.

Almost no on is using medium format for portrait work at the large commercial portrait studios (e.g. Yuen Lui) anymore.

I wonder if cost has anything to do with it.

First of all, it is too expensive,

Indeed.

and by using larger apertures possible with the 35mm format you don't have to use such powerful lighting, etc.

Huh. Now you live in a fantasy world. Usually portraits are taken with artificial light (in the pro world), and the aperture is only used to control DOF and usually the DOF is large enough.

If it ever becomes necessary to replace the lenses, I wouldn't be surprised if commercial studio's switch to APS-c or 4/3 sensors.

It's just that m43 or APC-C offer no real advantages. The fast portrait lenses on small sensor are very expensive and even they are slower (and m43) than the medium fast ones on FF. (ie. the f/1.2 Leica vs. f/1.8 85mm).

And they'd have to change much of the gear and learn new camera with lower operating limits and hope it's good enough

Does Olympus or Panasoc have pro-support program CaNikon have? It is essential for pros (unless you talk about passport shooters).

The real problem with APS-c is that the best lenses are still made for FF format.

Some some, some are not. It's not the 90's any more.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Truthiness
Regular MemberPosts: 122
Like?
You don't understand exposure and image quality on different formats
In reply to tedolf, 4 months ago

tedolf wrote:

Truthiness 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 wedding.

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

Ok, now what just happened to your shutter speed?

I kept it the same? What's the problem?

Went from 1/125 to 1/30 sec., didn't it?

No. Why woud it? If I feel like it, I'll up the ISO, though I often shoot at ISO 100 (as I shoot raw and my camera is close to being ISOless).

Maybe you don't understand that 1/125 on both cameras, the m43 needs two stops faster f-stop to allow the same amount of light to be used to draw the image on the image plane. Thus the image quality will be the same with these settings (1/125 with f/4 vs. f/2).

What if 1/30 isn't fast enough?

What if you learned why I don't need to adjust the shutter speed.

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.

Sigh, see above.

Sign, 1/125, f/4 on FF gives essentially IDENTICAL image to 1/125, f/2 on m43.

The FF lens at f/4 draws an identical (though scaled to be four times as large) image to m43 at f/2. Thus, the same amount of light is planted on the image plane. If the exposure lasts the same time, the image quality will be the same (disregarding sensor efficiency differences etc.)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Truthiness
Regular MemberPosts: 122
Like?
Re: Less than $300.00.....
In reply to tedolf, 4 months ago

tedolf wrote:

Truthiness wrote:

tedolf wrote:

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?

Sony:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/731708-REG/Sony_SAL85F28_85mm_f_2_8_SAM_Mid_range.html

Less than $300.0 and that is new. Used it is less than $200.00

I wonder if any other system has one slow 85...

Canon 85/1.8 is less than 400 bucks new, so still only a 100 buck difference.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-FD-85mm-2-8-Soft-Focus-EDMIKA-EOS-EF-lens-mount-conversion-adapter-kit-/171264667773?pt=US_Lens_Adapters_Mounts_Tubes&hash=item27e02b707d

So now you are so desperate yuo try to find old manual focus lense you need adapter for. You know there are 85/1.8 manual focus lenses which don't cost much at all? You're getting a bit silly now.

Nikon:

$99.00

There are many others you can find, I will leave the exercise for the reader.

Jupiter-9 85mm f/2 - a very popular lens, about 100 bucks. Now you need to find a slower lens which is on the market for negative amount of money.

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.

It is exactly the same maximum aperture, not two stops "slower".

f=focal length. the f-stop numer forms a formula where focal length is divided by a number.

Thus 85/1.8 has entrace pupil of 47,2mm, while (the little more narrow or long) 45mm /1.8 lens has entrance pupil of 25mm.

The maximum apertures are two stops apart (considering the slightly different field of view).

The aperture number is different from aperture.

Please think of the word speed. Why it is commonly used? Isn't it because a fast lens allows for faster shutter speed for the level of image quality required?

So if on m43 f/2 gives image quality of x, on FF f/4 gives the same image quality x. Thus f/2 on FF is two stops faster.

Please, F-stops are the mathematical ratio of focal length to lens diameter.

No, it's a ratio of focal length to entrance pupil. Have you noticed that 45mm lens and 85mm lens have a different focal length, thus the aperture diameters are different for the same f-stop?

The 42.5/1.2 Leica/Panasonic is still a stop slower,

No, it is one stop faster.

No, one stop slower. A 85mm FF lens at f/2.4 allows identical amount of light to pass the m43 Leica does at f/1.2.

Just above you understood that f/# is a ratio - why not calculate how much 85/1.8 is and how much 45/1.2 is?

Let's get back on topic. We are talking specifically about the image the OP tried to take.

We can go back to that, but not until you see the light

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.

forget it, I don't want to explain it to you. It is just going to get you off on a tangent.

The f-number tells us about the density of light hitting the sensor. The FF and m43 have similar capability of holding the light without saturation per area. FF has about 4 tiimes more area and it in this case collects 4 times more light. Thus ND is irrelevant to the topic.

An example. Both sensors have 16MP, the FF pixels have about 4 times as large full well capacity (FWC). At f/1.8 if both sensor have the same exposure time, the FF collects about four time as much light. But because it's collection capacity (FWC) is also four times larger, it'll manage just fine without ND filters.

The problem is that you don't understand the very basics here. I'm not trying to insult you or bash you system, but just to teach you a bit. I would not do that, but since you started writing factually false stuff, someone needs to correct it so that the OP et al won't misunderstand the reality and maybe buy a camera based on incorrect information.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 17,914Gear list
Like?
No, no, no.....
In reply to Truthiness, 4 months ago

Truthiness wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Truthiness wrote:

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.

For DOF purposes yes. That is my point.

For all relevant poins. Exact same light is being captured, exact same DOF, exact same SNR (assuming same read noise and QE).

the Exposure Value (EV) will be different.  1/125 sec. f/4, ISO 200 on a 4/3 sensor does not have the same exposure as 1/125 sec., f/2, ISO 200 on  a FF camera!

The FF photo will be underexposed by two F stops!

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

This is absurd. The exposure value is different by two stops at the same shutter speed.

Who cares what the exposure will be?

?????

Say again?

Who cares what the exposure will be?

The same exposure causes different effect on different formats, so why insist the same exposure?

Because you need a properly exposed shot!

Waiiiiiit a minute.    I get it.......

You are playing a game with me, aren't you?

The only way you can do this, and keep the shutter speed the same is to increase ISO on the FF camera by two stops.

Ok, where's the problem? Do you know what ISO is and why that is irrelevant?

ISO is irrelevant, huh?

Really?

Well, I have got to hear this.

Tell my why ISO is irrelevant.

Your argument is not rational.

There is something very fundamental you do not understand about exposure

I understand exposure perfectly. It's got three parameters - ambient light, aperture number and exposure time. However, using the same parameters the results will be different with different systems.

Not quite but close enough.  The parameters are shutter speed, medium sensitivity (ISO for digital)  and aperture.

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.

Look at some DOF tables for portrait FOV lenses for the two formats (say 85mm for the FF, and 45mm for the 4/3 sensor) and see which one has the more usable DOF profile.

According to basic laws of optics 45mm on 4/3 sensor has almost identical DOF to 90mm lens of FF when the FF lens has been stopped down two more stops

yes, you understand. DOF, and DOF only is the same.  Obviously exposure (EV) will not be the same.

(ie. f/2 on 4/3 gives the DOF of f/4 on FF) . This is not rocket science.

If your DOF tables disagree, you should see what's wrong with them.

What I was asking you to do was to look at those two tables at a focused distance of about 8-10 feet.  The distance you are going to be at taking a head and shoulders shot.

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).

Good God, do you have the capacity to follow an argument? DOF is part of image quality.

So far you've been preoccupied with DOF. Then I mentioned that stopped down lens tend to work better than wide open one, so FF has an advantage.

Except stopping down causes other problems-slower shutter speeds or higher ISO's.

Did you see the OP's original picture. You can not get the full head, front to back in focus on a tight head and shoulders shot using a FF camera at ten feet with an 85mm lens at f/1.8. The DOF is only 3 inches.

So now it's only about DOF again? Do you not understand that he could have stopped down to f/3.6?

Not if he wanted to use base ISO.

That would equal m43 42.5mm f/1.8. Or is stopping down impossible?

sometimes it is impossible, unless you are going to introduce artificial lighting.

What about that are you incapable of understanding?

Your lack of logic.

I see.

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.

Those are the standard print sizes in the U.S.

The only print size in the U.S. that matches a 3:2 aspect ratio is 4" x 6" (hardly an enthusiast size print) and 20" x 30", which hardly anybody prints on a regular basis.

Rubbish. You know I have an internet connection and I have checked that to be false. So please stop spreading your nonsense.

Well, tell us what the truth is.  What are the most popular large printing formats in the U.S.?

Today all kinds of print ratios are very common.

Really? Have you ever worked at photo print shop? Do you have any idea what size the most common large print is?

I can use the internet and I've checked out lots of print labs. They all print to all kinds of aspect ratios. There is no advantage to any single aspect ratio. Unless you view on the telly or computer screen when 16:9 ratio is often best - that's far from 4:3.

I will save you the research: in the U.S. it is 8" x 10". In the UK it is A4.

Prove of this? Link?

Actually, that is your homework that I gave you.

And what is "large size" - to me not A4 - and btw, A4 is not the most common in Europe as people print in the aspect ratio they shoot whenever possible and nowdays all the ratios are available.

Name one on line printer where "all ratios are available".

Look at standard pricing charts for enlargements.  They only show the popular sizes.

And who cares what most printed is. What matters is what you can print.

Most people at home can only print up to 8.5" x 11" U.S., or A4 U.K. because their printer can't print any larger than that.  If they want something larger, most people go to a printing service.

And in the cases you're more interested in not printing, but using a computer screen, 4:3 is hardly optimal.

The vast majority of computer screens actually in use today is 4:3.

Are you on drugs? Or in the '90s? They're almost all 16:9 nowdays with some odd 16:10's there. 4:3 is almost unused nowdays. Just like the TVs, the big screens you can watch soap operas and photograpsh.

Except that most TV's in actual use are older models.

The next most popular size is 16:9 which matches neither 4/3 or 3:2.

16:9 is heck of a lot close to 3:2 than 4:3.

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.

Except you can't use f/2 on a FF for a tight head and shoulders shot at 10 feet with an 85mm lens.

The DOF is too narrow.

Can I not use it at f/4?

Not if you need a fast shutter speed at base ISO.

How many times do we have to go over this?

So many times you understand that lenses can be stopped down.

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?

To get a faster shutter speed.

Ok, do you not understand that f/4 on FF will collect the same photons m4/3 collects at f/2, thus they can use the same shutter speed and get the same noise levels.

Please, try to keep up!

Please try to understand what limits the shutter speed.

Subject motion.

Assuming same f/# Wide open on iPhone is not the same as wide open on FF, is it?

No it isn't. That is the point I am making!

No, that is not the point you're trying to make.

Nor is wide open on m43 is not the same as wide open on FF (assuming same f/#).

Yes, finally you are getting it!

Odd, how you insist that both formats should be used 'wide open'... where is your logic?

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

Depends on your TV. My Sharp Equos LCD TV is 4:3.

Must be old. Seriously, whendo you live? In 2014 it is difficult to find TV's which are not 16:9, well over 90% of all computer displays are 16:9, both laptop screens and monitors.

Most TV's in use were not bought in 2014, or 2013 or 2008 for that matter.  Most TV's in use are about ten years old.

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?

Yes, if you are in a dark environment and need the light or if you want to shoot at base ISO.

But you get a diffeent iimage with FF and m43? Do you not understand that you will get essentially identical image with FF f/4 to m43 f/2 if the shutter speed is the same.

But you are not going to be able to use the same shutter speed!

Have you ever used a hand held light meter?  Do you notice that none of the suggested EV's and none of the possible aperture/shutter speed combinations depend on format size?

Do you wonder why that is?

Sure you may need to use ISO 400 instead of ISO 100, but the image quality will be essentially identical (same amount of light will be collected).

Sometimes you do not want to use ISO 400.  Sometimes you even want to use and extended ISO like ISO 100 or 64.

Why do you think they even provide these extended low range ISO's.

Do you have any idea why photographers find these desirable?

So it is not intellectually honest to claim that m43 is better because you use different minimum IQ requirement for each system.

Better for what?

FF is better for some things (shallow DOF wide angle shots), 4/3 is better for other things (head and shoulder portraiture) and MF is better for still other things, and really small sensors are better for other things yet (wide ranging, 30x fast zoom lenses) .

If we followed your logic, there would be no end to the contention that larger sensors are always better because you can always stop down.  If that were the case we would all be shooting medium format!

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.

See above, I am not going to repeat it again.

Good, as there is no logical reason for your argument.

Do you think that m43 with f/2, 1/200, produces a different image from FF with f/4, 1/200 if equivivalent focal lengths are used (eg. 45mm vs,. 90mm)?

yes the images will be different.  One will be twice as bright as the other.

If not, then why you insist that FF can't be stopped down to f/4?

See above.

The printout-reason isdemonstrably false -

why?

I even checkoud out typical US based photolabs and they all offered all kinds of output formats on all sizes.

Tell me what these U.S. 3:2 print out formats are, other than 4x6 and 20x30?

Do I really have to go throuh all the zillion places people can print?

No, just one.

I will give you a hint. York Photo is the largest photo printer in the U.S.

And the only one too I guess. Interestingly they seem to have less options than the average el-cheapo in my country.

Let's see, Youk Photo: 4x6, 12x18, 20x30, 24x36.

you skipped 5x7 and 8x10.  The two most popular print sizes.

I googled for photo lab usa and coult not find your favorite in the top three pages, and won't look further.

Why shold I order photos from a place which orders so few options? There seems to be many more popular photolabs with much wider variety.

This alone makes you sound like biased for your favorite brand or format.

The "wide open" logic is just silly.

Now I am not following you. The maximum aperture of a lens is often the first thing a photographer considers after deciding on a focal length for purchase.

So if you take a hot on m43 with f/2 you won't consider a FF lens of f/4?

I would because to me a 90mm f/1.8 lens on a FF camera is pointless.  I would rather have a 90mm f/4 FF lens- and in fact I do!

lower left corner.   Rokkor M mount 90mm, f/4.

You insist on shooting wide open for illogical whatever reason.

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.

Lord.

No, a commoner.

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

Except that it isn't.

Or course it is.

Just like medium format is no longer superior for portraits over FF once FF resolution became high enough for good large prints.

Ah, so "good enough" is now the arbitrary limit you define in some arbitrary way and anything that offers more quality than that is not relevant. I see.

Yes, that is it.   You made the very same contention in another forum comparing the GH4 to a smaller sensor camera.

Almost no on is using medium format for portrait work at the large commercial portrait studios (e.g. Yuen Lui) anymore.

I wonder if cost has anything to do with it.

First of all, it is too expensive,

Indeed.

and by using larger apertures possible with the 35mm format you don't have to use such powerful lighting, etc.

Huh. Now you live in a fantasy world. Usually portraits are taken with artificial light (in the pro world), and the aperture is only used to control DOF and usually the DOF is large enough.

Yes except using powerful continuous lighting is hot and uncomfortable on the customer.

Using lower apertures allows you to turn down the power.

If it ever becomes necessary to replace the lenses, I wouldn't be surprised if commercial studio's switch to APS-c or 4/3 sensors.

It's just that m43 or APC-C offer no real advantages. The fast portrait lenses on small sensor are very expensive and even they are slower (and m43) than the medium fast ones on FF. (ie. the f/1.2 Leica vs. f/1.8 85mm).

And they'd have to change much of the gear and learn new camera with lower operating limits and hope it's good enough

Does Olympus or Panasoc have pro-support program CaNikon have?

No, and that is why Oly and Panny will never truly be professional cameras.

It is essential for pros (unless you talk about passport shooters).

The real problem with APS-c is that the best lenses are still made for FF format.

Some some, some are not. It's not the 90's any more.

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
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 17,914Gear list
Like?
Ha!
In reply to Truthiness, 4 months ago

Truthiness wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Truthiness 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 wedding.

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

Ok, now what just happened to your shutter speed?

I kept it the same? What's the problem?

Went from 1/125 to 1/30 sec., didn't it?

No. Why woud it? If I feel like it, I'll up the ISO,

caught you!

Now, what if you want the better dynamic range and lower noise of base ISO, or extended low ISO?

though I often shoot at ISO 100 (as I shoot raw and my camera is close to being ISOless).

So, you have a problem now don't you?

Maybe you don't understand that 1/125 on both cameras, the m43 needs two stops faster f-stop to allow the same amount of light to be used to draw the image on the image plane.

not for proper exposure.

Thus the image quality will be the same with these settings (1/125 with f/4 vs. f/2).

It wont be the same, if you changed you shutter speed (moving subject) or your ISO (dynamic range, noise).

What if 1/30 isn't fast enough?

What if you learned why I don't need to adjust the shutter speed.

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.

Sigh, see above.

Sign, 1/125, f/4 on FF gives essentially IDENTICAL image to 1/125, f/2 on m43.

No it doesn't.  It is two stops darker unless you slow down your shutter speed two stops (possible subject motion blur, possible hand held camera shake blur) or you raise your ISO two stops (lower dynamic range, possible noise depending on what ISO you started at).

The FF lens at f/4 draws an identical (though scaled to be four times as large) image to m43 at f/2. Thus, the same amount of light is planted on the image plane. If the exposure lasts the same time, the image quality will be the same (disregarding sensor efficiency differences etc.)

None of that matters.  What matters is motion blur, dynamic range and noise, and those things are not the same with those settings.

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
skyglider
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,182Gear list
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.

Didn't read the whole thread so sorry if this is redundant.

Here's a youtube focus tutorial for the 70D:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vQwZzbhzXs

Sky

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Doss
Senior MemberPosts: 1,726
Like?
Proof by your own taste does not prove your point
In reply to tedolf, 4 months ago

tedolf wrote:

I don't like the first two precisely because the DOF is too shallow.

Well, if we are just talking about what YOU like there is no point in further discourse. I can't argue against that.

In the first shot the leading shoulder is OOF and the trailing eyebrow and rear of rear eye socket. As I said in a previous post, this was at one time a "desired look" in advertising, but is not generally acceptable for conventional portraiture.

Despite those first two pictures being taken by current, leading portrait photographers? You have a strange ability to be adamant in your view when presented with the facts to the contrary. From what I see, shallow DOF remains a 'desired look', and will continue to do so.

The second shot is a good example of why this is problematic. The girl's eye's and mouth are the only things in focus, the back of her head is OOF. This creates the impression that her face is bigger than it really is causing a perceived distortion as if a wide angle lens was used. Again, for Madison Avenue this might be OK but if you ran a portrait studio like that you would go broke.

Now the third one I really do like (quite a lady) but I suspect that the DOF is deeper in this shot than you think it is.

No, there is no 'thinking' involved, only seeing. The fact is the DOF is still shallower than the depth of the model's head (against your argument).

I bet it was not shot wide open.

No, I expect none of them were - but they still prove the fact you don't have to adhere to a rule (or an industry standard, albeit a non-existant one) of 'all-encompassing' DOF.

Enjoy your DOF charts. I'll continue enjoying good photos, whatever their aperture settings.

Peace, out.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Truthiness
Regular MemberPosts: 122
Like?
ISO is not relevant
In reply to tedolf, 4 months ago

tedolf wrote:

Truthiness wrote:

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.

An Olympus OM-D EM-5 can't shoot wide open at base ISO?

You want the FF to shoot an image the OM-D can not shoot, both regading DOF and image quality. Why can the FF shooter not be satisfied to just shoot an identical image to OM-D?

The big sensor can still do what the small can.

It can't.

It can trade DOF to more light. It can also shoot at the same DOF and collect the same light.

It can't shoot a tight head and shoulders shot with an 85mm lens wide open at 10' because the DOF is less than 3".

Again you insist "wide open" for some irrational reason.

Do you not understand, that stopping down the FF two stops give both the same DOF and image quality you would get from a m43?

A 4/3 sensor camera can (45mm lens, f/1.8 focused @ ten feet DOF = 10 inches.

Look at a DOF table.

Why can I not shoot the image on FF so that it's got the same signal-to-noise ratio (and almost certainly better optical quality due to stopping down), but am forced to get a higher SNR? Why can't you accept that I can also shoot the same image with FF. Shooting wide open creates a different image, shooting two stops closed the same image.

Please answer this question:

What is different in the image quality if I shoot on FF with 1/200, f/4 and ISO 400 and if I shoot on m43 with 1/200, f/2 and ISO 200?

(disregard image ratio, QE etc.)

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)

????? how are you going to get the same image quality if you need 1/125 sec. shutter speed to freeze the bride walking down the isle but you want to use base ISO for a variety of reasons?

Why you insist base ISO on both systems?

If you use a FF DSLR you are going to be shooting at 1/30 sec. to get the same DOF as on the 4/3 sensor.

No, I'll be shooting 1/125 and if I feel like it, I'll up the ISO 2 stops or just push in Lightroom.

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.

And once you open up the aperture your DOF shrinks and parts of your shot are going to be OOF.

But that is only an option. I don't have to do that. An FF can achieve exactly what m43 and also both better SNR and more shallow DOF (the two go hand in hand if the shutter speed remains the same).

Do you realize that f/2 wide open m43 or APS-C is not the same as f/2 wide open on full frame?

That is exactly my point! DOF is greater on the 4/3 sensor at the same aperture/shutter speed combination.

But your point fails to understand that I can stop the FF down two stops and it still matches the image quality with the same shutter speed.

f/4 on FF gets the same DOF and with the same shutter speed

No, not the same shutter speed. You would have to change your ISO on the FF camera.

So?

the same image quality a m43 gets on f/2.

It is not the same image quality if you use the same aperture, same ISO and slower shutter speed if the subject is moving!

ISO has either little or no effect on image quality. Over most of the image, outside of the deepest shadows it's quite irrelevant.

Do you understand why images are noisy? It's because light itself is noisy. Photon shot noise is poisson distributed and the standard deviation of the noise is sqrt(signal), thus if a pixel collect 10.000 photons, the noise is 100 electrons.

The ISO may (or may not) change the readnoise a bit, but since it's typically about 5 electrons or less, it's quite irrelevant (especially since the noises are added in quadrature), so in this case the 10.000 electron signal would have photon shot noise of 100, readout noise of 5, thus total noise of sqrt(100^2+5^2) = 100,12492 electrons. It isn't until the signal level of a pixel is down to 10 or so electrons when the readout noise becomes significant, thus it's not awfully relevant.

You mentioned Olympus OM-D EM-5. It actually has 6.5e read noise, which is a bit on the high side. For example Nikon D800 has just 2.7 electron read noise at base ISO, so upping the ISO would certainly not be needed.

Is this too technical? Do you understand where this is going? What do you think of this so far?

But for the cases you need more speed, you still have two stops of space with the FF.

Not unless you change your ISO by two stops.

Any why is that relevant?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Footski
Footski MOD
Senior MemberPosts: 1,512Gear list
Like?
Re: Less than $300.00.....
In reply to Truthiness, 4 months ago

Okay guys, this has gone past the point of just being boring. Please take your arguments off the forum. You are not doing the OP any favours here....

 Footski's gear list:Footski's gear list
Leica V-Lux 4 Nikon D7000 Fujifilm MX-700 Fujifilm FinePix F601 Zoom Samsung NV10 +15 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Truthiness
Regular MemberPosts: 122
Like?
ISO is not what you think
In reply to tedolf, 4 months ago

tedolf wrote:

Truthiness wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Truthiness 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 wedding.

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

Ok, now what just happened to your shutter speed?

I kept it the same? What's the problem?

Went from 1/125 to 1/30 sec., didn't it?

No. Why woud it? If I feel like it, I'll up the ISO,

caught you!

Nope. You just are a bit out of your depth.

Now, what if you want the better dynamic range and lower noise of base ISO, or extended low ISO?

Why do you think your beloved Olympus OM-D_E-M5 (I assume that's your tool as you mentioned it earlier) has a better DR or lower noise at it's base ISO than for example Nikon D800 at ISO 400?

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Olympus-OM-D-E-M5-versus-Nikon-D800___793_792

Here are some charts for your comfort. I added some helpful green lines:

I hope those help.

though I often shoot at ISO 100 (as I shoot raw and my camera is close to being ISOless).

So, you have a problem now don't you?

No. I do understand what noise is, where it comes from and how much there is it on different cameras. You might want to read http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/ as a quick primer on the subject.

Maybe you don't understand that 1/125 on both cameras, the m43 needs two stops faster f-stop to allow the same amount of light to be used to draw the image on the image plane.

not for proper exposure.

If the image created by both exposures are the same (they are), I can take images on both and apart from the aspect ration you would no see any difference in the FF 1/125 f/4 and m43 1/125 f/2 outputs. They would be identical. So if I were to blind test you, how could you say which has the "proper exposure" (whatever that means).

Thus the image quality will be the same with these settings (1/125 with f/4 vs. f/2).

It wont be the same, if you changed you shutter speed (moving subject) or your ISO (dynamic range, noise).

But different cameras have different DR and noise characteristics. Essentially FF has 2 stop advantage in all the relavant image quality metrics, thus stopping down 2 stops just equals the image qualities.


Sign, 1/125, f/4 on FF gives essentially IDENTICAL image to 1/125, f/2 on m43.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

It is two stops darker

Darkness and brightness is matter of processing, not an inherit propert of the raw-files or the captured image data.

If both sensor capture identical information (as they would, apart from aspect ratio and different sensor efficiencys etc.), how could you say that "one is darker"?

The FF lens at f/4 draws an identical (though scaled to be four times as large) image to m43 at f/2. Thus, the same amount of light is planted on the image plane. If the exposure lasts the same time, the image quality will be the same (disregarding sensor efficiency differences etc.)

None of that matters. What matters is motion blur, dynamic range and noise, and those things are not the same with those settings.

Actually if the senors have the same QE and read noise, they are.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads