Then you
well, there are APS-C and FF mirrorless cams, so... No, this is not the topic. MFT is the topic.
Shallow DOF is vastly overrated (and your example basically just screams "look at me I have no true artistic value but look at my shallow DOF!"), but taking pictures with ridiculously long focal lengths is missing the the benefit of having shallow DOF with regular more commonly used focal lengths.
Levan - I don't know why any reasonable photographer would suggest that your camera is a toy or would think that it is not capable of producing shallow DOF under certain conditions - for example with close ups and shots with wide aperture lenses.
they surely do.I'm not sure if you read the post or just look at the picture. Read the original post, hopely you'll understand, that obsession has nonthing to do with it. I don't even like the picture. It was a snapshot to check the AF speed at the longer end of the zoom. It does not claim to be a masterpiece
As i suggested before in other posts, you only saw the picture but never read my original post, where i clearly stated, that I don't like the picture. It was a snapshot to check the AF on the longer end of the zoom. And believe me, I know what Great Art is.
"far away" is very relative term in this topic. And you nailed one thing. "If you knew". This is what happens many times in many other aspect, when people say "bheh, ordinary shot", but if they was there, They´d be surprised. But as we don´t have the reference, it remains ordinary cheap shot of DoF almost every cam can do. Simple as that....I really did like the "apple analogy"
Well, i guess my photo do look confusing, but it is not macro by any means. This "plant" is a giant tree, which was (and is) pretty far away. if you knew the scene, you would also agree, that it's not a bad example of shallow DOF.
But hey, thanks for the guidence and "see you in hell"
Where is the shallow DOF?
Really? I've not heard it. What I've heard people say, however, is that the IQ from a phone camera is more than "good enough" in many situations, and I don't disagree.
For tightly framed photos, you can get shallow DOF with any system. It's just that the lenses for larger formats tend to have larger maximum aperture diameters for a given angle of view, and are thus able to deliver not merely a more shallow DOF for any given perspective and framing, but a more shallow DOF with a wider framing.Now, (eve in this thread) some people are saying, that the same effect (as in my picture) could be achieved with a camera phone
It's surprising how many people missed that. However, I do like sigala1's other point:
When people choose a system, they might want to consider the focal lengths they plan to use and how much depth of field control they want at those focal lengths. It's nice if a person has a standard they can refer to for comparison. A former TLR user, I felt I had sufficient choices with respect to DOF with that camera's normal focal length lens. Since I shoot 95% or more of all my pictures at any format's normal focal length, it is the depth of field control I'll have at a normal focal length that matters to me. For my Sigma SD14 (a 1.7X crop factor body), all I used was a 30mm f/1.4 lens, and it provided about as shallow a depth of field wide open as my TLR did--plenty of control for my purposes. When I used four thirds DSLR's, I never had a normal lens that was fast enough to get that same look, but for most things, I prefer deep depth of field anyway. Besides, it's been many decades since I had just one camera system to choose from, so if four thirds wouldn't meet my needs for a particular event or outing, I could simply take something else.
Well, 4/3 has zooms that are equivalent to f/4 on FF whereas the mFT zooms are equivalent to f/5.6 on FF. The primes on mFT range from f/1.9 equivalent (manual focus only, however) to f/3.5 equivalent on FF.
I meant the primes. Only prime below 2.0 in 4/3 was panasonic 1.4. M4/3 has much more primes in the range from 0.95 (while manual focus) through 1.8.
Clearly it does bother you. So much so that you felt the need to start a thread proving the 4/3rds format ability to have a shallow depth of field. There is a difference in DOF at a given aperture between formats. Does it matter? Depends on what you shoot and the look you are striving to achieve. If your creative vision, or lack of same, demands shallow depth of field on every shot you take then it could be a big deal. For those who shoot action with long lenses under other than optimum lighting conditions, shallow depth of field at wide apertures is a curse, not a benefit.I'm not sure if you read the post or just look at the picture. Read the original post, hopely you'll understand, that obsession has nonthing to do with it. I don't even like the picture. It was a snapshot to check the AF speed at the longer end of the zoom. It does not claim to be a masterpiece
P.S. It does not bother me at all, but the number and plot of the posts suggests there are people who are bothered (for whatever reason)???
