Depth of field.

Slimpie1972 · Oct 30, 2015

Is there anyone who switched from m43 to aps-c or fullframe for the shallower depth of field? I'm still unsure if I will go m43 for the portability or should go aps-c or fullframe for the shallower depth of field. I love portraits with that shallow depth of field that fullframe can give me. But for all the other subject I don't need that shallow depth of field. Only if I want to go creative with dof.

BostonC · Oct 30, 2015

Each format has the potential to produce amazingly shallow DOF if you uses the right lenses. So focus on what lenses (and budget) you want to buy.

Spectre38 · Oct 30, 2015

Using longer focal lengths and getting closer will give a shallower depth of field and there are other tricks.

A lot of folks get a cheaper FF camera specifically for that purpose (bokeh & low light) and generally use M43 most of the time.

tt321 · Oct 30, 2015

Spectre38 said:
Using longer focal lengths and getting closer will give a shallower depth of field and there are other tricks.

A lot of folks get a cheaper FF camera specifically for that purpose (bokeh & low light) and generally use M43 most of the time.

This is a good method.

If the OP is only interested in shallow DoF in portraits, then they could get a cheap second hand FF camera and a couple of lenses that cover most portrait situations, such as cheap 50/1.4 and 100/2, and leave it at that. Then they will have a lot of freedom to choose something else for other purposes, without being obliged to fill up the FF system with huge and heavy stuff.

There is no need to keep to a single system for all your needs. Most of us have a camera phone for situations where non-phone cameras are not suitable. Why not have two or more different cameras from different systems for different purposes?

Skeeterbytes · Oct 30, 2015

IMHO the decision revolves largely around what lens(es) you're willing to invest in. To minimize DOF means faster and/or longer lenses. The m4/3 specialty portrait lenses include notables such as the Noctocron and the mZD 75/1.8, as well as very fast MF lenses from such makers as Voigtlander. None of these comes cheap but in the right hands produces portraits anybody would be proud of. One of the fun aspects of m4/3 is adapting legacy lenses. e.g., an 85/1.4 or 50/1.4 or 1.2 can be fantastic and don't have to cost a king's ransom.

APS-C isn't meaningfully different from 4/3 so the only format jump worth considering for inherently shallow DOFs is full-frame. If you don't mind the heft, cost and large lenses, there's a world of gear to choose among. Based on what I see from advanced portraitists, they can make wonderful photos from either, understanding that a good portrait is mostly about lighting and posing.

Happy shopping,

Rick

Tom Axford · Oct 30, 2015

Slimpie1972 said:
Is there anyone who switched from m43 to aps-c or fullframe for the shallower depth of field? I'm still unsure if I will go m43 for the portability or should go aps-c or fullframe for the shallower depth of field. I love portraits with that shallow depth of field that fullframe can give me. But for all the other subject I don't need that shallow depth of field. Only if I want to go creative with dof.

It's actually very easy to get shallow DoF with MFT lenses and quite often the DoF is too shallow for close portraits.

The number of situations where MFT lenses are inadequate for portraits and FF is required are a very small minority of all the possibilities.

To illustrate this, the picture below was taken with a slow zoom lens at f/5.3, yet the DoF is already so small that only one eye is in focus!

BartyLobethal · Oct 30, 2015

Using the Oly 40-150 f2.8 at 150mm / f2.8 with a subject at 3m (enough for a tight head & shoulders portrait), the DOF will be a tad over 3cm - about enough to get everything from the tip of the nose to the eyes in focus. How OOF the background will be will depend on how far in front of it your subject is.

'Creativity' with DOF is a two-way street. The choice of deep DOF is no less a creative decision than the choice to use ulta-shallow DOF. WRT DOF capability / limitation changes with sensor size, but no sensor size is intrinsically 'more' capable or 'more' limited than any other.

tombell1 · Oct 30, 2015

--

It certainly does work both ways. Sitting at dawn on Dartmoor using a Gitzo Tripod with OMD 5 it is so much easier to get everyting in focus than on APSC

Tom Bell
Dartmoor
Devon

Tom Bell

Explore Tom Bell’s 20,579 photos on Flickr!

flickr.com

PerL · Oct 30, 2015

BartyLobethal said:
Using the Oly 40-150 f2.8 at 150mm / f2.8 with a subject at 3m (enough for a tight head & shoulders portrait), the DOF will be a tad over 3cm - about enough to get everything from the tip of the nose to the eyes in focus. How OOF the background will be will depend on how far in front of it your subject is.

'Creativity' with DOF is a two-way street. The choice of deep DOF is no less a creative decision than the choice to use ulta-shallow DOF. WRT DOF capability / limitation changes with sensor size, but no sensor size is intrinsically 'more' capable or 'more' limited than any other.

Of course a FF is more capable at getting thin DOF and equally as capable of getting deep DOF as a smaller format by increasing the ISO (which it can with no noise penalty if the sensor performance is equal). The price for this is larger size/weight. But there is no free lunch with any system.

Member said:
--
BartyL
www.facebook.com/barty.lobethal/photos_albums

BartyLobethal · Oct 30, 2015

PerL said:
Of course a FF is more capable at getting thin DOF and equally as capable of getting deep DOF as a smaller format by increasing the ISO (which it can with no noise penalty if the sensor performance is equal). The price for this is larger size/weight. But there is no free lunch with any system.

ISO plays no role in DOF whatsoever.

PerL · Oct 30, 2015

BartyLobethal said:
PerL said:

Of course a FF is more capable at getting thin DOF and equally as capable of getting deep DOF as a smaller format by increasing the ISO (which it can with no noise penalty if the sensor performance is equal). The price for this is larger size/weight. But there is no free lunch with any system.

Click to expand...

ISO plays no role in DOF whatsoever.

Whatever – I am sure you understand the equivalence theory, or you should read up on it. You can find hundreds or thousands threads about it here or on other forums.

Member said:
--
BartyL
www.facebook.com/barty.lobethal/photos_albums

yortuk · Oct 30, 2015

First picture is with a Panasonic GX8 and an old Pentax 50mm f1.4 lens plus a cheap focal reducer (RJ Speedbooster), for an effective 35mm f1.0.

The second picture is using a Panasonic GH2 with a Panasonic 100-300 zoom lens at 100mm f4.0.

greg57 · Oct 30, 2015

BartyLobethal said:
PerL said:

Of course a FF is more capable at getting thin DOF and equally as capable of getting deep DOF as a smaller format by increasing the ISO (which it can with no noise penalty if the sensor performance is equal). The price for this is larger size/weight. But there is no free lunch with any system.

Click to expand...

ISO plays no role in DOF whatsoever.

PerL · Oct 30, 2015

yortuk said:
First picture is with a Panasonic GX8 and an old Pentax 50mm f1.4 lens plus a cheap focal reducer (RJ Speedbooster), for an effective 35mm f1.0.

The second picture is using a Panasonic GH2 with a Panasonic 100-300 zoom lens at 100mm f4.0.

Those samples are at a close distance, which is easy.

John King · Oct 30, 2015

Gidday Yort

That first photo is nice and sharp at the eyes, but it looks as if the second has a fairly bad case of shutter shock or camera motion blur to me.

This shot is taken with my E-30 and 14-54 MkII lens at 23mm. FTs rather than mFTS, but the principles are the same. It was taken through a heavy curved glass cabinet front, so loses some definition to this - I was flaming amazed that it came out as well as it did!

IMHO, it demonstrates the importance of getting camera distance to the principle subject right, and in the correct proportion to either the background, or the remainder of the FoV, as in this case.

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
.
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --
.
The Camera doth not make the Man (nor Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
.
Galleries: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/

Bird Control Officers on active service.

yortuk · Oct 30, 2015

PerL said:
PerL said:

Those samples are at a close distance, which is easy.

Click to expand...

The first one is quite close, I think just a couple feet. The second was about 6-8 feet, but not a fast lens. If I had more room I could have shot at 300mm from farther away and gotten even shallower DOF. Or if I had faster lens, like the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8, it could give similar DOF from farther away.

I do have a Pentax 135mm f2.5 that does great shallow DOF, but I didn't have any examples handy.

The point was just to give an idea of what's possible with m43, and since the OP was talking about portraits, I think these are reasonable examples of what can be achieved.

Gabriel · Oct 30, 2015

I switched from a 5D II to MFD (I still have the 5D). DOF is enough for my taste on MFD with the right lend, weight is a lot less and great lenses cost a fraction of what they do compared to Canon.

yortuk · Oct 30, 2015

Yeah, it's probably not the best example, but I just wanted to show what a longer, slower lens could do, and that picture was handy. It was taken at 1/13 sec at ISO 400, so I definitely could have boosted the ISO a bit. Also trying to squeeze into a tight kitchen with that lens probably wasn't the best idea.

Your picture is making me hungry.

John King · Oct 30, 2015

yortuk said:
Yeah, it's probably not the best example, but I just wanted to show what a longer, slower lens could do, and that picture was handy. It was taken at 1/13 sec at ISO 400, so I definitely could have boosted the ISO a bit. Also trying to squeeze into a tight kitchen with that lens probably wasn't the best idea.

Haha. I know what you mean. We have all been in that sort of tight spot using a completely inappropriate FL lens, I reckon. One does what one can in the circumstances!

Last week, I used my FTs 11-22 lens at one of our local botanical gardens all day (I accidentally left my 14-54 at home ... DOH!). Shooting at down to f/8 over this pretty short/wide FL range, and this still produced any number of shallow DoF shots. I often have difficulty getting sufficient DoF, rather than the converse.

yortuk said:
Your picture is making me hungry.

I know what you mean, they look delicious even though I cannot eat patisserie pastries due to allergies ...

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
.
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --
.
The Camera doth not make the Man (nor Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
.
Galleries: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/

Bird Control Officers on active service.

richj20 · Oct 30, 2015

Slimpie1972 said:
I love portraits with that shallow depth of field that fullframe can give me. But for all the other subject I don't need that shallow depth of field. Only if I want to go creative with dof.

Hi,

I assume you mean having the background out of focus. If you arrange the subject and background distance, you can be creative with the look of the background with almost any m4/3 lens: