papillon_65
Forum Pro
Just a quick question, when did 90mm become "wide angle"?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why do you want shallow DoF anyway?
- Thread starter Louis_Dobson
- Start date
Roel Hendrickx would disagree.
Was too late to edit post. Ok, they aren't wide angle, there are wide angle 0.95 primes.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=voigtlander 17mm 0.95&styles=depthoffield
Here's a better link. Voigt 17.5
https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=voigtlander 17.5&styles=depthoffield
Oly 12mm
https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=olympus 12mm&styles=depthoffield
Saying that you need FF to knock the background out of focus with wideangle is just not true.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=voigtlander 17.5&styles=depthoffield
Oly 12mm
https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=olympus 12mm&styles=depthoffield
Saying that you need FF to knock the background out of focus with wideangle is just not true.
Last edited:
I think someone protests too much.
FF provides shallower DoF with the same angle of view; it provides substantially higher resolution; it provides much better low-light performance; dynamic range is slightly better.
For those who do not need those advantages, smaller formats are good. But it's a bit silly to say that no one needs any of that, or that M4/3 provides the exact same performance as FF.
Sometimes, it's to isolate the subject. Sometimes, it's to de-emphasize a distracting background. Sometimes, it's because it provides a good look to the image.
WA won't isolate the subject. Also, if you're too close, it can distort the subject.
Uh, yes, tele lenses have shallower DoF than wide or normal lenses. Surprise?
And it costs $1600 new. You can get a fast 50mm FF lens with the same DoF for a fraction of that price.
No, you don't.
FF provides shallower DoF with the same angle of view; it provides substantially higher resolution; it provides much better low-light performance; dynamic range is slightly better.
For those who do not need those advantages, smaller formats are good. But it's a bit silly to say that no one needs any of that, or that M4/3 provides the exact same performance as FF.
The bit about Ff providing substantially higher resolution is simply not true.
The EM5 II can produce resolution that bests any FF currently on the market, as well as some medium format cameras, this isn't my opinion, it's a fact printed on the manufacturers website.
Last edited:
papillon_65
Forum Pro
By your criteria of high resolution the Nokia 808 is better than the EM5II, two shots gives you 82mp.
We are discussing cameras, not phones.
I'm not talking about megapixels, I'm talking about resolution.
BTW the Nokia has a res of 7728x5368, no way near what the EM5 II is capable of.
Last edited:
HR mode. You end up with a ~60mp raw file.
Canon 5ds/r: 8688 x 5792
OMD EM5 II: 9216 x 6912
Last edited:
Eric Nepean
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 6,418
- Solutions
- 8
- Reaction score
- 4,069
If technology permitted, I would want (and I believe many others also) would want a depth of field which is wider than my subject is deep (so 15cm or more), but yet a heavily blurred background. How do we get there? (many will say forget it - not possible)
Background blurring depends only on the size of the entrance pupil (roughly - the diameter of the front element of your lens) - observe percent blur at infinity on "how much blur" and you will see this is so.
Depth of field is proportional to the aperture F-ratio and inversely proportional to sensor size. Again, this can be observed on how much blur as the distance where .07% blur occurs. (.07% is the ratio of the CoC to the sensor diagonal =.015mm/21.6mm for M43 camera, = .03mm/43mm for Full Frame camera)
Using a head and shoulders view (0.9 x 0.6 meters) as reference, with a 50mm F1.8 lens on a full frame camera, the rear depth of field is about 2.8cm and the blur at infinity is 3.1% Depth of field of about 2 inches is a bit narrow for me.
The same view with with a 50mm F1.8 lens on an M43 camera, has a rear depth of field of 5.8cm and the blur at infinity is still 3.1%. More of the subject is in focus (depth of field is now about 4inches), and the background blur 30m away is the same 3%.
But you might say, well the background blur 5m away is now 2% with the M43 camera instead of 2.5% with the full frame camera.
Then, choosing an M43 camera with the 75mm F1.8 lens will result in a rear depth of field of 5.8cm, a blur at 5m of 2.7% and a blur at infinity of 4.6% - so the same 4 inch depth of field and equivalent or better background blur.
Can M43 with some practical lens match a 50mm F1.4 lens on a full frame camera? The M43 system can't match the 3.2% background blur at 5m with any automatic lens, but my Canon FD 85mm F1.8 with the FD to M43 Speedbooster does (manual focus now), and the depth of field is 6cm versus 2cm.
Background blurring depends only on the size of the entrance pupil (roughly - the diameter of the front element of your lens) - observe percent blur at infinity on "how much blur" and you will see this is so.
Depth of field is proportional to the aperture F-ratio and inversely proportional to sensor size. Again, this can be observed on how much blur as the distance where .07% blur occurs. (.07% is the ratio of the CoC to the sensor diagonal =.015mm/21.6mm for M43 camera, = .03mm/43mm for Full Frame camera)
Using a head and shoulders view (0.9 x 0.6 meters) as reference, with a 50mm F1.8 lens on a full frame camera, the rear depth of field is about 2.8cm and the blur at infinity is 3.1% Depth of field of about 2 inches is a bit narrow for me.
The same view with with a 50mm F1.8 lens on an M43 camera, has a rear depth of field of 5.8cm and the blur at infinity is still 3.1%. More of the subject is in focus (depth of field is now about 4inches), and the background blur 30m away is the same 3%.
But you might say, well the background blur 5m away is now 2% with the M43 camera instead of 2.5% with the full frame camera.
Then, choosing an M43 camera with the 75mm F1.8 lens will result in a rear depth of field of 5.8cm, a blur at 5m of 2.7% and a blur at infinity of 4.6% - so the same 4 inch depth of field and equivalent or better background blur.
Can M43 with some practical lens match a 50mm F1.4 lens on a full frame camera? The M43 system can't match the 3.2% background blur at 5m with any automatic lens, but my Canon FD 85mm F1.8 with the FD to M43 Speedbooster does (manual focus now), and the depth of field is 6cm versus 2cm.
offtheback
Senior Member
With your post I was nearly cured of sensor envy,but then everyone chimed in.I need to read only the first argument I like and stop.
So can I use that on a power boat race at 300 kph or a BIF Steve ? How fast is the AF for tracking in that mode ?
Danny.
greg57
Leading Member
What part of "wide angle" don't you understand Steve?
Are you blind, I amended my posts as well as providing alternate links for the 17.5 and 12mm.
CharlesB58
Forum Pro
Talking about FF is only daft if DoF is the only reasoning behind it. For me it's not: I consider FF sensors for tonality of the dynamic range and resolution as it relates to cropping images. Ergo, DoF is not near the top of the list.
Have you looked at the EXIF's on those pages Steve ?? I'm looking at 45mm again and 75-300mm shots as well.
Danny.
--
Birds, macro, motor sports.... http://www.birdsinaction.com
Flickr albums ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/124733969@N06/sets/
The need for speed ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/130646821@N03/
Last edited:
It isn't that hard to use the search feature, and the filter.
You seem to want to be a PITA.
Last edited:
What the heck is a ..... PITA. Sounds like a type of bread to me. Must be a generation thing going on. I sort of understand LOL, but that's about it.
Why didn't you say you needed to filter the shots in the first place. Gees.
Danny.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum