-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
MusicDoctorDJ
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 12,400
- Reaction score
- 11
What I find ironic is that so many here in the chats think that everyone who shoots with a camera always wants an out of focus background.
There are lots of us shooting that like to have as much depth of field as possible, which is where the 4/3 cameras shine over the other sizes of DSLR sensors.
--
J. D.
Colorado
- Should have shot this with my Oly instead of Pentax DSLR:
Sergey_Green
Veteran Member
Please provide the examples where the same DoF is not possible with larger formats.
--
- sergey
Rriley
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 21,846
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 474
indeedy
and consider this
FF advocates (often APSC users anyway) will describe how FF can be set to cover as much DoF as 4/3rds, but it often isnt as simple as that in practise. The focussing modules cram all the AF points within the centre third, so you have to watch that hyperfocal distance carefully and it is easy to be caught unaware and be left with a foreground or corners that are OOF
the very poor distribution of AF points means full DoF is not an automatic or guaranteed process, its something that with FF you need to work at b/se results are not guaranteed. Even with WA, you may find yourself using F stops inconveniently smaller than equivalence suggests to ensure you have full DoF, something 4/3rds users do not have to contemplate in the same circumstances.
EXAMPLES
this is the E30 OVF and AF points, notice the wide generous spread of points
this is 5DII OVF and AF points, notice that its difficult to compose rule of thirds
D700, a tad better but basically the same thing, rule of thirds shallow DoF, look out
and Sony A900, probably the narrowest and hence worst distribution
--
Riley
any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
MusicDoctorDJ
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 12,400
- Reaction score
- 11
As most of the FF'ers here in the chats will gladly tell you, 4/3 gives you more depth of field at larger lens openings than APS-C and FF, to which they of course think is a downfall of 4/3.
I'd love to sit here and post a bunch of images, but I'm about to head out the door to go sell some cameras.
Maybe if I get a chance at work today I can do some side-by-side shots with an FF, APS-C and an Oly . . . but I can't promise anything!
--
J. D.
Colorado
Tyrone Wellhung
Leading Member
4/3 gives less depth of field at larger lens openings for the same angle of view*. They both give the same depth of field for the same lens opening, so whichever has the larger lens opening gives less DOF. Generally FF can produce less DOF because for most AOVs there are lenses available with larger lens openings that there are for FT.
* Edit: that could be phrased more clearly, what I meant was if you have a FT and FF camera and lens giving the same AOV and the FT lens has the larger lens opening (aperture) then it will hive the smaller DOF
Louis_Dobson
Veteran Member
if one already has the HG lenses and doesn't want two systems.
I can't see the point of the E3, 7-14, 14-35, 35-100 combo as a primary system. Heavy, expensive, and out-performed by the D700, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 combo. One stop less noise, one stop more DoF control, roughly same weight and price.
You can buy low light performance in the body or the lens. Generally, best to buy once, in the body.
E3, 7-14, 12-60, 50-200 is more or less unbeatable however, if you want something portable but integrated and powerful. Cheap (relatively) too.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
I can't see the point of the E3, 7-14, 14-35, 35-100 combo as a primary system. Heavy, expensive, and out-performed by the D700, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 combo. One stop less noise, one stop more DoF control, roughly same weight and price.
You can buy low light performance in the body or the lens. Generally, best to buy once, in the body.
E3, 7-14, 12-60, 50-200 is more or less unbeatable however, if you want something portable but integrated and powerful. Cheap (relatively) too.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
Tyrone Wellhung
Leading Member
No-one said everyone wants that. In fact look where I said 'If you want small and light, 135FF isn't in the game'. It's all a metter of what your personal preferences are, what Ff gives you or what FT gives you.
With respect to 'as much DOF as possible' FT gives you exactly the same as any other format.
Rriley
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 21,846
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 474
certainly when you need 100-400 L to compete in FL terms thats very true, but back to your first point, what the system allows is a combination of bodies and lenses of various weights and capabilities, some that you take some that you leave home.
Its been my view that while people have been trying to make sense of this kit by putting lots of energy into the question of how it competes with FF, how it competes with APSC has been largely overlooked. Some significant downsides to bodies have somewhat held the system back but they have been largely design issues that are fixable. If the system was/is allowed to continue for the generation beyond E3/E30, a logical technical improvement of things should make those issues look very different. The question is, will it....
--
Riley
any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
Great Bustard
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
Well, for people pics, this is often true. For landscapes, it's rarely true. But it's a nice option to have.
Really? Does that apply to landscapes and macro? 'Cause if so, a lot of landscape and macro photographers never got the message.
Also, in your followup post, you said you'd shoot some examples. I'm kinda hoping that you'll have the sense to shoot each system at the optimal settings for the particular photo you're presenting, rather than the same settings.
For example, surely you wouldn't shoot a macro at f/8 on 4/3 and FF as "evidence" of your claim, right? Or are we talking quick snaps with jpgs in Auto or P mode?
Great Bustard
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
It is for me, however, so I must be "gifted". However, I'm thinking you have an example in mind to demonstrate the opposite. Let me address that now. If I've guessed correctly, and you're thinking of a particular landscape pic taken at 50mm f/8 on a 5D where the foreground was outside the DOF, this was not "user error" in the sense you discuss above.
It would have been easy, of course, to have shot at f/16. But at f/16, diffraction begins to degrade the image just like f/8 does on 4/3 . So, the photographer, hoping that f/8 would get the job done, and wishing to avoid diffraction softening as much as possible, instead incorrectly chose f/8 thinking the f/8 would have covered the corners.
But, if instead the photographer's goal was "to cover as much DoF as 4/3rds", then they would have simply shot f/16 (or higher), diffraction softening be damned. It's safer, of course, but often photographers are looking for "optimal", rather than "safe", and in the course of this motive, make mistakes at times.
Great Bustard
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
..."more or less unbeatable". A little more, and a little less, come in the following package: 550D, 8-16, 15-85 IS, and 70-300 IS.
MusicDoctorDJ
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 12,400
- Reaction score
- 11
Interesting comment . . . but pretty damn lame.
Which of course tells me which one of us was an actual full time photographer for most of their adult life . . . and which one wasn't.
Just because of your snide response, I don't think I'll bother doing those shots for anyone.
These Olympus forums sure have gone downhill lately.
--
J. D.
Colorado
Rriley
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 21,846
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 474
ah, a new approach that differs from,' i dont really care about corners as theyre only x% of the image' ... shifting to 'i dont really care this entire hill is OOF b/se its meant to be that way even though it looks weird to you, 'i' call it 'art!
well actually i wasnt, but since we are here, was that what you said about it last time?
more like F11 on 4/3rds before its noticeable, but by F16 you can see the effects as you would at F32 on FF,........ if you had one
i can think of two scenarios where this can go wrong, for your more usual B&W shallow DoF but with picture elements in the outside thirds of the image you must focus recompose or use MF,
.......for all other scene photographs where the photographer is neither 'gifted' lucky or roaming around with a DoF chart for the shooting lens of the moment, but does 'care' about corners/edges and whatever else might be outside the remaining 2/3rds of the shooting AoV..... - then you have to be 'more careful'
.....b/se chances are good that AF wont do it for you, you either compensate with a tighter aperture than you otherwise think you can get away with or start measuring distances to figure it out. What was that word?, equiv .. equivalent ... equivalence! thats it!
(in a sense FF photographers should be more interested in this, as it just might be part of the cause of those 'unacceptably' softer edges on some well known L UWA lenses.)
and so the dependency on AF FF can be somewhat of a trickster, as its narrow FoV can trip you up. Not a huge and insurmountable problem, but made more problematical than it needs to be just so that manufacturers can use the same AF modules in FF and APSC models.
The cheapsters, .........after all, isnt this is why we have machines, so they do all the work......
well thats the thing, with 4/3rds you dont really need to think about that, something ive said before about the differences, where shallow DoF on 4/3rds requires effort, full DoF does not. Invert the terms for FF.
in the meantime, this
simply isnt good enough for a machine given to process shallow DoF view of the world, as long as that world is in the centre 1/3rd of your frame
its just a cost cutting exercise for canon (in this case)
and if it isnt good enough, then all of the former that i have explained is the 'real deal' and an issue worthy of some contemplation.
as always 'your mileage may vary', but in this case you'd be wrong ;0
--
Riley
any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
ginsbu
Veteran Member
QFT.
It bugs me to no end when people blame higher noise levels or inferior high ISO performance of 4/3 cameras versus their APS-C competitors on the "small" sensor. Against APS-C, the difference in sensor size isn't much of an issue: ~ 1/3 - 2/3 stop, depending on which APS-C and preferred cropping -- differences of this magnitude exist between different APS-C bodies! The performance shortcomings of Oly bodies are far more issues of design and engineering, and as such are correctable. Olympus shouldn't get off the hook here based on specious sensor size arguments.
Great Bustard
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
Pity. I was so looking forward to the f/8 on 4/3 vs f/8 on FF jpg corner sharpness comparisons. Look on the bright side -- I saved you the effort.
It's all those 13 year olds.
Great Bustard
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
I never argued either point. Ever.
Diffraction softening affects all systems equally at the same DOF. Hover, the system that had more detail to begin with will lose the additional detail faster as all systems asymptotically approach 0 lp/ih.more like F11 on 4/3rds before its noticeable, but by F16 you can see the effects as you would at F32 on FF,........ if you had one
As you know, the corners rarely hold any interest to me. But, sometimes they do, such as with some UWA landscapes. Once or twice , I did an experiment by focusing at the near point of the frame and at infinity and compared at f/16. No discernable difference for that particular scenario.
As much as I love that word, "Equivalence", I opt for a different word in this scenario -- "Experience".
If by "the same AF modules" you mean the same absolute spread of AF points, rather than the same relative spread of AF points, then I agree that FF is at a disadvantage here in terms of off-center composing. In fact, it's annoying on occasion. Your bud, JW, once explained to me why this is so.
But, it's never been an issue for me to get the corners in the DOF when I wanted to.
I won't argue against that. In fact, compacts make it even easier still.
I don't have a link to my conversation with JW on this handy, but it's more complicated than merely cost cutting, although, given how cheap Canon has been with their hardware that causes banding, I'd be happy to have accepted that explanation.in the meantime, this
simply isnt good enough for a machine given to process shallow DoF view of the world, as long as that world is in the centre 1/3rd of your frame
its just a cost cutting exercise for canon (in this case)
I've long asked for a 7x5 grid of equally spaced AF points, and wondered what the deal with the elliptical/diamond clustering in the center was all about, thinking it was a choice, rather than a constraint. As it turns out, according to JW, it's a constraint, not a choice (at least for mirrored systems).
Honestly, unless you are composing for deep(er) DOF with the AF point near the edges for a dynamic scene, in my opinion (and experience), it's a non-issue.
Tyrone Wellhung
Leading Member
It really depends on whether Olympus has the resources and commitment to do it. I think there would be some demand for what the E-system could be (of maybe should have been) which was a compact full system DSLR. But from where it is now, it needs a lot of development:
- fast, compact primes
- compact and fast top end zooms
- compact top end bodies
Tyrone Wellhung
Leading Member
The issue is the depth of the mirror box and the space for the sub-mirror behind the main mirror which reflects the light down to the AF sensors in the floor of the mirror box.
Most FF systems (and especially Canon, which has a very short register in relation to frame size) there's only room for a sub mirror about 1/3 the height of the main mirror. One could still have a stripe of AF across the frame, but by and large they work with standard AF modules which have a form factor for APS-C. Nikon, does the reverse and has an AF module designed just as big as it can be for FF, then puts it in an APS-C camera, where it's huge.
FT, with its enormous register in relation to its frame size can cover the frame with AF points. The big register has, however, its own trade-offs, mainly making lenses much bigger than they need be. There is rarely a perfect design, and it's always a matter of balancing trade-offs. I just wonder, if the choice between more AF coverage and smaller lenses had been explicit, which people would have gone for.
Rriley
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 21,846
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 474
i think you finally need to recognise that there are people who do want sharp corners, washing your hands of it b/se its not something you as an individual cares about just isnt good enough in the role you take on writing on the net,I never argued either point. Ever.
Diffraction softening affects all systems equally at the same DOF. Hover, the system that had more detail to begin with will lose the additional detail faster as all systems asymptotically approach 0 lp/ih.more like F11 on 4/3rds before its noticeable, but by F16 you can see the effects as you would at F32 on FF,........ if you had one
As you know, the corners rarely hold any interest to me. But, sometimes they do, such as with some UWA landscapes. Once or twice , I did an experiment by focusing at the near point of the frame and at infinity and compared at f/16. No discernable difference for that particular scenario.
it looks like an excuse
no thats not rightAs much as I love that word, "Equivalence", I opt for a different word in this scenario -- "Experience".
If by "the same AF modules" you mean the same absolute spread of AF points, rather than the same relative spread of AF points, then I agree that FF is at a disadvantage here in terms of off-center composing. In fact, it's annoying on occasion. Your bud, JW, once explained to me why this is so.
But, it's never been an issue for me to get the corners in the DOF when I wanted to.
I won't argue against that. In fact, compacts make it even easier still.
I don't have a link to my conversation with JW on this handy, but it's more complicated than merely cost cutting, although, given how cheap Canon has been with their hardware that causes banding, I'd be happy to have accepted that explanation.in the meantime, this
simply isnt good enough for a machine given to process shallow DoF view of the world, as long as that world is in the centre 1/3rd of your frame
its just a cost cutting exercise for canon (in this case)
I've long asked for a 7x5 grid of equally spaced AF points, and wondered what the deal with the elliptical/diamond clustering in the center was all about, thinking it was a choice, rather than a constraint. As it turns out, according to JW, it's a constraint, not a choice (at least for mirrored systems).
Honestly, unless you are composing for deep(er) DOF with the AF point near the edges for a dynamic scene, in my opinion (and experience), it's a non-issue.
just as it is for deep DoF, its the same for shallow DoF
its for ANY scene that has detail further to any edge
otherwise its focus/recompose b/se anything the AF points cant reach, isnt there, or you have to play safe with your aperture losing base points in 'equivalence'
this just might be compositionally more limiting than we think, shallow DoF portraits seem to have the subject within the scope of the AF points, it cant always be b/se thats the best look
--
Riley
any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended