how do you live with the 4/3 wide depth of field?

Topher5 · May 22, 2010

Oh dear me my DOF is faulty with my OLY. NOT!

Was Mozart a genius because he used a Steinway. NOT!

IT is a photographic tool with great Glass.

I don't even have the really expensive glass either.

But I do love my f1.4 Sigma. But most of these were shot with the 70-300mm Zuiko. Also the 12-60mm is like Zeus lightning fast.

--
C. Ashworth

Sergey_Green · May 22, 2010

Art_P said:
For macro work, there's never enough DOF anyway

Never!
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=32603642

Art_P said:
For biding, it's nice to get more than the birds eye in focus (plus greater DOF = greater 'fudge factor')

Nice to have (don't they?)
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=31750052

Art_P said:
And getting isolation hasn't been an issue either

[/QUOTE]
At the closer range (as in the image you have shown) there should be no background, just color.
[QUOTE="Art_P, post: 35386015, member: 438158"]
OK, If you really need just someon's right eyelash in focus for some reason, you want razor thin DOF... so go for MF and a fast lens.
[/QUOTE]
Unless you bring it close to the eye, but you don't have to
[URL='http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=31473057'] http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=31473057 [/URL]
[QUOTE="Art_P, post: 35386015, member: 438158"]
For normal use 4/3 DOF is just fine
[/QUOTE]
Out of four points you made, just fine ..

--
[I] - sergey [/I]

Sergey_Green · May 22, 2010

Topher5 said:
Oh dear me my DOF is faulty with my OLY. NOT!

Actually it is, do you need counter-examples?

Topher5 said:
Was Mozart a genius because he used a Steinway. NOT!

Good tools make work easier, not?

Topher5 said:
IT is a photographic tool with great Glass.

Every system has great glass.

Topher5 said:
I don't even have the really expensive glass either.

This is as cheap as it can get,

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=31473057

Topher5 said:
But I do love my f1.4 Sigma. But most of these were shot with the 70-300mm Zuiko. Also the 12-60mm is like Zeus lightning fast.

So you are supposed to have lighter system, and then you take longer and bigger lenses to achieve the same? Way to go!

[imgs]

--
- sergey

Topher5 · May 22, 2010

So as you can see folks its not the camera its the attitude.

--
C. Ashworth

Klarno · May 22, 2010

It's all quite subjective.

The most marvelous thing about full frame and larger formats (besides resolution and having more image area to work with) is the ability to, at a normal perspective (35-60mm) with a human-sized subject, have selective focus. However, this isn't appropriate for all shots.

The most marvelous thing about 4/3 is the ability to work with a deeper depth of field at a faster shutter speed. This also isn't appropriate for all shots (For the purposes of this discussion, I'm not interested in the deeper characteristics of equivalence and how ISO 100 on ideal 4/3 produces similar noise at the same depth of field and shutter speed and light condition as ISO 400 on ideal FF--save it for a dedicated equivalence thread, we haven't had one of those in a while). This, of course, also isn't appropriate for all shots.

If we're dealing with portraits, it's true, we don't have a way to completely obliterate a background like you can with an 85mm f/1.2. The only way to approach the results of a 105mm f/2 lens is to spend an absurd amount of money on Leica glass. For portraiture, an old 50mm f/1.4 gives me enough shallow depth of field.

People are getting magnificent full-body portrait results with no background with the 150mm f/2, but that's not really usable in a studio (you have to be at least 30 feet away from the subject, and then the background needs to be at infinity)

For all intents and purposes, there's no meaningful selective focus ability gained between 4/3 and APS. This is because the biggest difference between 4/3 and APS is in one dimension, with a very small difference in the vertical. 4/3 may be half the area of APS, but most of that is wasted on the sides.

If you want selective focus at normal perspectives and large subjects, you have to spend so much you're out of the 4/3 ballpark anyway (even moreso if you want IS), and while you can use the best FF glass on APS systems, you can't use the best APS glass on FF systems (which is, because of the design of the glass, far better on APS than the best FF glass is on APS), so why worry?

--
http://www.photoklarno.com

Sergey_Green · May 22, 2010

Topher5 said:
So as you can see folks its not the camera its the attitude.

Very much so

--
- sergey

TrapperJohn · May 22, 2010

Very shallow DOF is only one aspect of photography, not required for all shots, and not desirable in some cases.

For macro or long telephoto, shallow DOF is a problem. Can you get enough? In that respect, 4/3 is terrific. Stopping down to get more DOF is just not something one has to do much with 4/3, nor is carrying a huge lens with the lowest two stops virtually unusable.

Portraits? There are a few fast 4/3 lenses that can do well. Unfortunately, most of them are not cheap. ZD 14-35, PL25, ZD50, ZD 35-100, ZD150. All F2 or faster. Most are fairly large, which means they can be awkward on a small M4/3 body.

With M4/3, you do have the Panny 20 1.7, reasonably priced and quite small.

Simply thinking one 'has to have' shallow DOF is not sufficient. Like UWA, if you don't have a specific purpose in mind, the results can be atrocious.

Sergey_Green · May 22, 2010

TrapperJohn said:
Very shallow DOF is only one aspect of photography, not required for all shots, and not desirable in some cases.

Same goes for deep DoF; sometimes it is needed, sometimes it is not.

TrapperJohn said:
For macro or long telephoto, shallow DOF is a problem. Can you get enough? In that respect, 4/3 is terrific. Stopping down to get more DOF is just not something one has to do much with 4/3, nor is carrying a huge lens with the lowest two stops virtually unusable.

So how is it unusable here,

http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=32603642
http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=31750052

TrapperJohn said:
Portraits? There are a few fast 4/3 lenses that can do well. Unfortunately, most of them are not cheap. ZD 14-35, PL25, ZD50, ZD 35-100, ZD150. All F2 or faster. Most are fairly large, which means they can be awkward on a small M4/3 body.

es, but some, elsewhere, can do even better, and for less.

TrapperJohn said:
With M4/3, you do have the Panny 20 1.7, reasonably priced and quite small.

You could be right here, I do not know.

TrapperJohn said:
Simply thinking one 'has to have' shallow DOF is not sufficient. Like UWA, if you don't have a specific purpose in mind, the results can be atrocious.

It gives you more flexibility to draw the eye of the viewer directly to the subject, one of the fundamental features (and abilities) in the photography. But of course, if one does not know what to do with it, then it is neither here nor there.

Got to run ..

--
- sergey

Digirame · May 22, 2010

We live with it, because we like it.

I actually like a greater depth of field, so often I push the F-stop number as high as F18. I spend more time choosing my backgrounds...that's my shooting style...also always hand-held...never use a tripod.

Olympus E-510, Zuiko 70-300mm lens, ISO400, F13, 1/250, 300mm FL

vm299 · May 22, 2010

I agree with the previous comments, but also depends on how far the background is away from you as well as the subject. The attached photo was shot @ f/4 which is not a large aperture but the background is far away.

Tonbo · May 22, 2010

Others have chimed in quite well. I will take a different tack and tell you that boke (Anglisized as bokeh) quality is not necessarily dependent upon DOF or a circular aperture. Pretty much any lens with the right technique and composition can render blurred out elements. Take any 300 f/2.8 or equivalent at full aperture at the close focusing distance with a distant background and nothing in the foreground. It takes thoughtful lens design to render quality boke in the foreground as well as background especially at closed down apertures. Oly and Leica, generally speaking, know and do that superior to other brands. (Obviously there are some exceptions).

Sergey_Green · May 22, 2010

Digirame said:
We live with it, because we like it. I actually like a greater depth of field, so often I push the F-stop number as high as F18. I spend more time choosing my backgrounds...that's my shooting style...also always hand-held...never use a tripod.

[/QUOTE]
It looks way over-sharpened, almost unreal.

--
[I] - sergey [/I]

Bootstrap · May 22, 2010

And you told us that you had to run...

Sergey_Green said:
Digirame said:

We live with it, because we like it. I actually like a greater depth of field, so often I push the F-stop number as high as F18. I spend more time choosing my backgrounds...that's my shooting style...also always hand-held...never use a tripod.

[/QUOTE]
It looks way over-sharpened, almost unreal.

--
[I] - sergey [/I]
[/QUOTE]
--
[QUOTE="Sergey_Green, post: 35386979, member: 620018"][QUOTE="Sergey_Green, post: 35386979, member: 620018"]
[I] Bill Turner [/I]
[/QUOTE]
Please do [B] not [/B] copy or edit my photos without my permission.
[/QUOTE]

Click to expand...

Sergey_Green · May 22, 2010

Bootstrap said:
And you told us that you had to run...

It's a hockey game, I am watching it.

--
- sergey

jkrumm · May 22, 2010

You know what it is, and how it works. With this system if you want anything creamy you go long or you get close. My 12-60 is at its best from about f2.8 to 4.5, and I often leave it at f 4.5, where you only see a little blur in most shots, if any, but to me it looks great, super sharp, very good for showing highly detailed scenes in a wide, though not to infinity, depth of field. In terms of depth of field, it's obviously not like a point and shoot, and it's not full frame, but somewhere in between on its own. It means you often don't use bokeh as a compositional element, but there are plenty of other ways to compose.

--
John Krumm
Juneau, AK

Art_P · May 22, 2010

Sergey_Green said:
At the closer range (as in the image you have shown) there should be no background, just color.

Why? I got just the effect I wanted.

Maybe you want complete isolation... Is that why you try so much to be hated around here?

Really, what works for you is obviously very different from what works for me, and the OP's question was 'how do I live with 4/3 DOF
I answered for what works for me and don't much care what works for you...
have a nice day anyway

--
Art P
Select images may be seen here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sigvarius/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cecropia_grove/

luisflorit · May 22, 2010

Sergey_Green said:
Art_P said:

For biding, it's nice to get more than the birds eye in focus (plus greater DOF = greater 'fudge factor')

Click to expand...

Nice to have (don't they?)
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=31750052

Sorry, but you complain about Art_P using macro to achieve shallow DOF, and you use a 4kg 500mm F4 lens... with teleconverters?? That's cheating much more, and I am not talking about the $8500.00 that lens costs. Funny answer.

Cheers,
L.

--
My gallery: http://w3.impa.br/~luis/photos

Oly Ee3 + 12--60 + 50--200 + EeC-14 + Oly EfEl50R
Pany FZee50 + Oly EfEl50 + TeeCon17 + Raynx 150 & 250
Nikn CeePee4500; Cann SDee500

Sergey_Green · May 22, 2010

luisflorit said:
Sorry, but you complain about Art_P using macro to achieve shallow DOF, and you use a 4kg 500mm F4 lens... with teleconverters?? That's cheating much more, and I am not talking about the $8500.00 that lens costs. Funny answer.

For macro it was Sigma 150, except the last frame. I believer it was Nikon 70-200 (it was on canary islands, and I forgot my macro lens at home).

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=32603642

The point of the comparison was that shallow DoF is achievable with any system, big or small. Link there is actually to a FF. And if it comes to one to one in a bad light, then the higher ISO will not hurt either. In most scenarios it is not even necessary.

--
- sergey

TheEye · May 22, 2010

Forums are like parallel words in a multiverse. Crossovers do happen on occasion, and the results can be destructive.

a12345, you bought the wrong camera if all your DOF requirements are mostly biased towards shallow DOF. You simply chose poorly with disregard for your needs and wants. I hope this helps answering your question!

--
http://shuttermadness.wordpress.com/

luisflorit · May 22, 2010

Sergey_Green said:
luisflorit said:

Sorry, but you complain about Art_P using macro to achieve shallow DOF, and you use a 4kg 500mm F4 lens... with teleconverters?? That's cheating much more, and I am not talking about the $8500.00 that lens costs. Funny answer.

Click to expand...

For macro it was Sigma 150, except the last frame. I believer it was Nikon 70-200 (it was on canary islands, and I forgot my macro lens at home).

You stripped the part above my comment where I quoted the comparison you posted, and the one I was referring to. Here it is, again:

Sergey_Green said:
Sergey_Green said:

For biding, it's nice to get more than the birds eye in focus (plus greater DOF = greater 'fudge factor')

Click to expand...

Nice to have (don't they?)
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=31750052

Those shots have been taken with the Nikkor 500 F4 and teleconverters on the D200, no Sigma, no FF, no macro there. Birding with 1250mm EFL at close range, I would expect shallow DOF even in a cell phone...

Sergey_Green said:
The point of the comparison was that shallow DoF is achievable with any system, big or small.

Sure. So we all agree then.

Of course, if shallow DOF is what we need, FF is better because you get the results you want easier. If not so shallow DOF if what you want, then you can also get that with FF raising the ISO, but then you loose the FF advantage.

Me, I am a 100% a wildlife shooter (macros, birding, landscapes), I couldn't care less about portraiture for example. So ultrathin DOF is all that I don't want, and getting a big FF setup to shoot at F10 and ISO1600 is pointless. Many times, 43rds DOF is even too shallow for me (usually for macros, and sometimes for birding). I need to go out to shoot macros with my FZ50!

However, I don't like the E3 ISO500, and I would like FF clean high ISO, but because my birds love closed shadows and not because of shallow DOF. But I cannot carry a Nikkor 500mm F4 for 5, 6 and more hours hiking in closed rainforests, as I normally do.

Cheers,
L.

--
My gallery: http://w3.impa.br/~luis/photos

Oly Ee3 + 12--60 + 50--200 + EeC-14 + Oly EfEl50R
Pany FZee50 + Oly EfEl50 + TeeCon17 + Raynx 150 & 250
Nikn CeePee4500; Cann SDee500

how do you live with the 4/3 wide depth of field?

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Active member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

jkrumm

Guest

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts