Reading mode: Light Dark

For those, who don't believe in m4/3's shallow DOF

Go to last post
L

Levan

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
265
Reaction score
54
Ok, First of all, I know, it's not the great picture, so you don't have to critisize it from this point of view. It is straight out of the camera jpeg. Also, pay attention, that shot was made with m4/3 camera from 2011, so it's sensor is 2 generations behind, so comments about noise presence in low ISO, sharpness etc is not relevant also. This picture is for Shallow DOF demonstration only.

And yes, I know, that with FF DOF would be shallower in similar conditions, and similar results would be achievable with shorter focal length, but again, that is not the point. The point is, shallow DOF is more than achievable with m4/3 and is not "As bad, as a camera phone".

4c230b7b49f64a14a91f7264235d0de5

Shot with Panasonic GX1. View from the window to the ordinary street in the ordinary city. Oh yes, the tree is also ORDINARY, picture is ordinary too.
 

Attachments

  • 4c230b7b49f64a14a91f7264235d0de5.jpg
    4c230b7b49f64a14a91f7264235d0de5.jpg
    6.5 MB · Views: 0
Levan said:
Ok, First of all, I know, it's not the great picture, so you don't have to critisize it from this point of view. It is straight out of the camera jpeg. Also, pay attention, that shot was made with m4/3 camera from 2011, so it's sensor is 2 generations behind, so comments about noise presence in low ISO, sharpness etc is not relevant also. This picture is for Shallow DOF demonstration only.

And yes, I know, that with FF DOF would be shallower in similar conditions, and similar results would be achievable with shorter focal length, but again, that is not the point. The point is, shallow DOF is more than achievable with m4/3 and is not "As bad, as a camera phone".
Click to expand...
This is obviously nonsense but it is true than m43 is going to place more of a limit on when you can create a shallow DOF.

I'm guessing this shot it taken with an adapted oly 43 55-200mm lens as well rather than an m43 lens.
 
Last edited:
Pft I'll see your gigantic m4/3 sensor and raise you a 1/2.3" sensor (and not even shot wide open):



So what?
 
MoreorLess said:
Levan said:
Ok, First of all, I know, it's not the great picture, so you don't have to critisize it from this point of view. It is straight out of the camera jpeg. Also, pay attention, that shot was made with m4/3 camera from 2011, so it's sensor is 2 generations behind, so comments about noise presence in low ISO, sharpness etc is not relevant also. This picture is for Shallow DOF demonstration only.

And yes, I know, that with FF DOF would be shallower in similar conditions, and similar results would be achievable with shorter focal length, but again, that is not the point. The point is, shallow DOF is more than achievable with m4/3 and is not "As bad, as a camera phone".
Click to expand...
This is obviously nonsense but it is true than m43 is going to place more of a limit on when you can create a shallow DOF.

I'm guessing this shot it taken with an adapted oly 43 55-200mm lens as well rather than an m43 lens.
Click to expand...
I really don't understand what you mean by "nonsense".

And yes, this is an "adapted" 50-200, but what the difference does it make?
 
quezra said:
Pft I'll see your gigantic m4/3 sensor and raise you a 1/2.3" sensor (and not even shot wide open):



So what?
Click to expand...
Do you consider your picture to have shallow DOF? This effect can be achieved with any kit lens, wide or tele. Shallow DOF is also achievable with wide lenses also, but that is not the point. The point is, it's there.
 
Yes, this picture have shallow DOF.

If you shot your subject really close with a far background, you will always have shallow DOF, even with a phone camera.

Now, if you're talking about nice bokeh, it's another story.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/miwok/
 
Last edited:
Levan said:
Do you consider your picture to have shallow DOF? This effect can be achieved with any kit lens, wide or tele. Shallow DOF is also achievable with wide lenses also, but that is not the point. The point is, it's there.
Click to expand...
You really miss the point. The point is that yes, even the smallest sensors can give you "shallow" DoF compositions but the ease at which one can do so varies greatly. A half-body portrait with blurred background on a 1/2.3" sensor requires a long lens (this is at 135mm in FF terms), an extremely distant background, and a moderately close subject.

You achieved foreground blur in your picture by having close foliage, an even longer lens (400mm equivalent) and far background. But not every scene lends itself to those placements of objects. That's the whole point of having wider apertures and larger sensors.
 
Does this picture look like a macro? the subject in focus is like about 7 meters away. And it's not only the background which is out of focus. Or, maybe you have a some kind of a superphone?:-)
 
I understand, there are limitations, but does not a FF have limitations? Does not medium format have limitations?

I was not forced to use long focal length for shallow DOF. I could get the same amount of blur with 75mm 1.8, but the framing would be different.
 
Levan said:
MoreorLess said:
Levan said:
Ok, First of all, I know, it's not the great picture, so you don't have to critisize it from this point of view. It is straight out of the camera jpeg. Also, pay attention, that shot was made with m4/3 camera from 2011, so it's sensor is 2 generations behind, so comments about noise presence in low ISO, sharpness etc is not relevant also. This picture is for Shallow DOF demonstration only.

And yes, I know, that with FF DOF would be shallower in similar conditions, and similar results would be achievable with shorter focal length, but again, that is not the point. The point is, shallow DOF is more than achievable with m4/3 and is not "As bad, as a camera phone".
Click to expand...
This is obviously nonsense but it is true than m43 is going to place more of a limit on when you can create a shallow DOF.

I'm guessing this shot it taken with an adapted oly 43 55-200mm lens as well rather than an m43 lens.
Click to expand...
I really don't understand what you mean by "nonsense".

And yes, this is an "adapted" 50-200, but what the difference does it make?
Click to expand...
I mean the criticism of m43 being "as bad as a camera phone" is obviously nonsense.

An adapted 50-200mm does raise issues about AF performance I'd imagine, from what I'v heard even with the most recent cameras performance isn't the same as with native lenses.

The bigger issue for me though would be that your demo is shooting at a 400mm equivalent angle of view, that's pretty limiting in terms of composition. The big advantage a FF camera will have is that it'll offer you the ability to create shallow DOF in more situations.

Of course you could argue that the Voightlander 0.95 lenses mean that provided you ok without AF the system doesn't really lag behind ASPC alternatives.
 
Levan said:
I understand, there are limitations, but does not a FF have limitations? Does not medium format have limitations?
Click to expand...
Sure they do. But those limitations are not in terms of being unable to do what small sensor cameras can do. FF cameras can simply raise the ISO or slow the shutter if they need to stop down to equalize DoF (or reach hyperfocal length, whichever comes first), and the large sensor allows them to do so without suffering as much noise degradation as the smaller sensor camera. On the other hand, the small sensor camera can never shoot the same kinds of compositions an f1.2 lens on FF can, and the costs of achieving f2.0 FF compositions are high (the f0.95 lenses are also not AF and soft wide open, whereas many FF lenses at f2.0 can be razor sharp).
Levan said:
I was not forced to use long focal length for shallow DOF. I could get the same amount of blur with 75mm 1.8, but the framing would be different.
Click to expand...
But you need the objects to be a certain distance apart from each other for your DoF look. Whereas for a larger sensor the objects could be a much greater range of distances apart (i.e. much nearer to each other) and subject isolation would still be possible.
 
Last edited:
Carsten Pauer 2 said:
Member said:
This picture is for Shallow DOF demonstration only.
Click to expand...
Shallow DOF is more like this.
Click to expand...
It's a good shot, but why do you present Macro shot to demonstrate shallow DOF? I ussualy stop down the apperture to 11,16 or even 22, to have more in focus. Shallow DOF in macro is common sense and can not be used to judge sensors (systems's) ability to achieve shallow DOF. In my shot, the subject is about 7-8 meters away. I could show you macro shots, in which DOF is much "shallower" than yours.
 
Levan said:
It's a good shot,
Click to expand...
Thank You, :-) (not really my Favorite Photo).
Levan said:
but why do you present Macro shot to demonstrate shallow DOF?
Click to expand...
I Think it fits better for a Example Photo, instead some Leaves with (wide) DOF.
Levan said:
I ussualy stop down the apperture to 11,16 or even 22, to have more in focus.
Click to expand...
Yes, i do the same when i need/want this for my Eye.
But for the little Flower, i want soft OOF.
Levan said:
Shallow DOF in macro is common sense and can not be used to judge sensors (systems's) ability to achieve shallow DOF.
Click to expand...
No ? That is new for me. :-)
Levan said:
In my shot, the subject is about 7-8 meters away.
Click to expand...
OK.
Levan said:
I could show you macro shots, in which DOF is much "shallower" than yours.
Click to expand...
That is good, and now ?
Probably this old Photo with 85mm is more what You want ? ;-)
 
Last edited:
MoreorLess said:
Levan said:
MoreorLess said:
Levan said:
Ok, First of all, I know, it's not the great picture, so you don't have to critisize it from this point of view. It is straight out of the camera jpeg. Also, pay attention, that shot was made with m4/3 camera from 2011, so it's sensor is 2 generations behind, so comments about noise presence in low ISO, sharpness etc is not relevant also. This picture is for Shallow DOF demonstration only.

And yes, I know, that with FF DOF would be shallower in similar conditions, and similar results would be achievable with shorter focal length, but again, that is not the point. The point is, shallow DOF is more than achievable with m4/3 and is not "As bad, as a camera phone".
Click to expand...
This is obviously nonsense but it is true than m43 is going to place more of a limit on when you can create a shallow DOF.

I'm guessing this shot it taken with an adapted oly 43 55-200mm lens as well rather than an m43 lens.
Click to expand...
I really don't understand what you mean by "nonsense".

And yes, this is an "adapted" 50-200, but what the difference does it make?
Click to expand...
I mean the criticism of m43 being "as bad as a camera phone" is obviously nonsense.

An adapted 50-200mm does raise issues about AF performance I'd imagine, from what I'v heard even with the most recent cameras performance isn't the same as with native lenses.

The bigger issue for me though would be that your demo is shooting at a 400mm equivalent angle of view, that's pretty limiting in terms of composition. The big advantage a FF camera will have is that it'll offer you the ability to create shallow DOF in more situations.

Of course you could argue that the Voightlander 0.95 lenses mean that provided you ok without AF the system doesn't really lag behind ASPC alternatives.
Click to expand...
AF performance with E-M1 quite good, but not as good as some native lenses. I mean, it's quick and accurate, but not as lightning fast as native 12-40 (I think no DSLR lens is that fast, due to the weight of the optics?).

In this particular shot, i used 200mm (400m eq) not for achieving shalow DOF, but for perspective and framing purpose. So, in this particular case, it's not a limitation in framing. it's individual decision.

The same amount of blur could be achieved with other, much shorter lenses. Or even the same lens, with on 100mm (200mm eq) would give perfect blur (while physically getting closer to the subject). There are a lot of combinations with different lenses, that give you as much blur as 95 percent of the situations you would ever need.

Ferrari is fast, faster than BMW, but how often do you need that speed boost (if ever)?
 
What a silly thread. Has any one actually claimed M4/3s has IQ like a phone camera?
 
quezra said:
Levan said:
I understand, there are limitations, but does not a FF have limitations? Does not medium format have limitations?
Click to expand...
Sure they do. But those limitations are not in terms of being unable to do what small sensor cameras can do. FF cameras can simply raise the ISO or slow the shutter if they need to stop down to equalize DoF (or reach hyperfocal length, whichever comes first), and the large sensor allows them to do so without suffering as much noise degradation as the smaller sensor camera. On the other hand, the small sensor camera can never shoot the same kinds of compositions an f1.2 lens on FF can, and the costs of achieving f2.0 FF compositions are high (the f0.95 lenses are also not AF and soft wide open, whereas many FF lenses at f2.0 can be razor sharp).
quezra said:
I was not forced to use long focal length for shallow DOF. I could get the same amount of blur with 75mm 1.8, but the framing would be different.
Click to expand...
But you need the objects to be a certain distance apart from each other for your DoF look. Whereas for a larger sensor the objects could be a much greater range of distances apart (i.e. much nearer to each other) and subject isolation would still be possible.
Click to expand...
The last sentence is the answer to my question which includes, that even with FF, there would be situations, when you need or want shallower DOF. The FF is not limitless as some imagine. I shot FF, and sometimes (very rarely) I want shallower DOF (while using even 1.2 lens). It does not make me say, that FF is a toy camera and I should go the medium format.

My point was, that, photographer should know the limitations and advantages of his equipment and learn to work with it. If a photographer blames his poor photos to the limitations of his equipment (given the limitations are not that terrible), he will never get good shots, cause there is no limitation free system. A someone would say "Balls are the limitation for a bad dancer":-).
 
Carsten Pauer 2 said:
Member said:
It's a good shot,
Click to expand...
Thank You, :-) (not really my Favorite Photo).
Member said:
but why do you present Macro shot to demonstrate shallow DOF?
Click to expand...
I Think it fits better for a Example Photo, instead some Leaves with (wide) DOF.
Member said:
I ussualy stop down the apperture to 11,16 or even 22, to have more in focus.
Click to expand...
Yes, i do the same when i need/want this for my Eye.
But for the little Flower, i want soft OOF.
Member said:
Shallow DOF in macro is common sense and can not be used to judge sensors (systems's) ability to achieve shallow DOF.
Click to expand...
No ? That is new for me. :-)
Member said:
In my shot, the subject is about 7-8 meters away.
Click to expand...
OK.
Member said:
I could show you macro shots, in which DOF is much "shallower" than yours.
Click to expand...
That is good, and now ?
Probably this old Photo with 85mm is more what You want ? ;-)
Click to expand...
Well, one thing for sure, your table was a mess:-)

I don't argue, that ,4/3 will achieve the same blur as the FF. I'm saying, that the blur provided by m4/3 will be more than enough in a lot of situations.

Macro can not be taken as an example, cause even with small sensor systems, most of the time you have to stop down aperture to get the desired results.
 
Levan said:
quezra said:
Levan said:
I understand, there are limitations, but does not a FF have limitations? Does not medium format have limitations?
Click to expand...
Sure they do. But those limitations are not in terms of being unable to do what small sensor cameras can do. FF cameras can simply raise the ISO or slow the shutter if they need to stop down to equalize DoF (or reach hyperfocal length, whichever comes first), and the large sensor allows them to do so without suffering as much noise degradation as the smaller sensor camera. On the other hand, the small sensor camera can never shoot the same kinds of compositions an f1.2 lens on FF can, and the costs of achieving f2.0 FF compositions are high (the f0.95 lenses are also not AF and soft wide open, whereas many FF lenses at f2.0 can be razor sharp).
Levan said:
I was not forced to use long focal length for shallow DOF. I could get the same amount of blur with 75mm 1.8, but the framing would be different.
Click to expand...
But you need the objects to be a certain distance apart from each other for your DoF look. Whereas for a larger sensor the objects could be a much greater range of distances apart (i.e. much nearer to each other) and subject isolation would still be possible.
Click to expand...
The last sentence is the answer to my question which includes, that even with FF, there would be situations, when you need or want shallower DOF. The FF is not limitless as some imagine. I shot FF, and sometimes (very rarely) I want shallower DOF (while using even 1.2 lens). It does not make me say, that FF is a toy camera and I should go the medium format.
Click to expand...
You are bashing a whole bunch of straw men. No one said FF is limitless. No one said M4/3 shoots iPhone quality. No one said shallow DoF is impossible on M4/3. (etc etc)
Levan said:
My point was, that, photographer should know the limitations and advantages of his equipment and learn to work with it. If a photographer blames his poor photos to the limitations of his equipment (given the limitations are not that terrible), he will never get good shots, cause there is no limitation free system. A someone would say "Balls are the limitation for a bad dancer":-).
Click to expand...
Ok so your point was trivial and everyone already knows this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
M4/3 for portraits -- DOF not shallow?
6 7 8
Replies
149
Views
7K
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany
D
TTartisan 35mm f/0.95 on m4/3: possible to change lens mount ?
Replies
10
Views
9K
Todd Yes
T
H
  • Locked
I'm starting to understand the simplicity of smart phones
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
6K
Mako2011
Mako2011
DavidMillier
m4/3 vs GFX50: 16 x 12 inch prints - Evaluation
2
Replies
21
Views
10K
DavidMillier
DavidMillier
JimKasson
Explaining the concepts behind equivalence without using the word
2
Replies
35
Views
13K
SrMi
SrMi

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top