Reading mode: Light Dark

Why do you want shallow DoF anyway?

Go to last post
jagge said:
papillon_65 said:
jagge said:
jagge said:
He's delusional, he thinks combining images = native resolution of the sensor, there is no hope for him.
Click to expand...
yep its pretty great its obvious that he is on a mission to very clearly prove beyond all doubt that he has not clue to what he is talking about.

On that he is very convincing for sure :0)
Click to expand...
Lmao - he's definitely convinced me on that one too.
Click to expand...
:=)

Papillon I have to ask you, is that gearlist of yours for real ?? Damn thats a lot of gear :0). I am now thinking about getting a used GM1 with the 12-32 to supplement my OMD em5 II, do you like that GM1, do you take it where you dont take other gear ??

Best wishes

Jakob
Click to expand...
I need to remove some of it but yes I have a few cameras :-) Don't forget the Sigma Merrills are effectively lenses with boxes on them. The GM1 is a great little camera if you keep the lenses small. The 12-32mm is excellent, I also have the 9-18mm and will probably get the 35-100mm F4-5.6. Actually the IQ from the GM1 matches the E-M1 most of the time IMHO and it all fits into a very small bag. Some people complain about the thumb dial but it's no problem to me and I have medium sized hands. It's a lot of fun to carry around and use when I really want to go light, works for me anyway.
 
It's actually possible that a very shallow 35 is needed as well as a shallow 50 and 100.

I'm trying to keep it reasonably simple. I personally just never use that length (nice shot by the way).
greg57 said:
Steve2015 said:
greg57 said:
What part of "wide angle" don't you understand Steve?
Click to expand...
Are you blind, I amended my posts as well as providing alternate links for the 17.5 and 12mm.
Click to expand...
Yes I saw it afterwards. You know that you guys are preaching the converted here right? This being said, the examples that have been shown here about focus/background separation with wide angle are all of pictures taken near the minimum focus distance (with the 12mm that's what you'd need). As for the Vogtlander 17.5, it is manual focus, so niche application basically.

As many have mentioned, this argument is revealing far too much insecurity. One day, when I have the budget, I will get the D750 and a 35mm 1.8 because i know I cannot get the same effect with a m43 despite what you and Louis are saying:

a5f1692f48784bcbad997d7c2ee58a77.jpg

But I will also keep most of my m43 gear for the reasons we all know ;)

--
Gregory Dziedzic
gregorydziedzic.com/photos
Click to expand...


--
www.flickr.com/photos/acam

The Gentleman Snapper

Blog of Louis Dobson, Algarve landscape and seascape photographer.
thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
 
papillon_65 said:
I need to remove some of it but yes I have a few cameras :-) Don't forget the Sigma Merrills are effectively lenses with boxes on them. The GM1 is a great little camera if you keep the lenses small. The 12-32mm is excellent, I also have the 9-18mm and will probably get the 35-100mm F4-5.6. Actually the IQ from the GM1 matches the E-M1 most of the time IMHO and it all fits into a very small bag. Some people complain about the thumb dial but it's no problem to me and I have medium sized hands. It's a lot of fun to carry around and use when I really want to go light, works for me anyway.
Click to expand...
 
I am saying shallow DoF comes from the entry pupil, AKA true aperture, of the lens. It has nothing to do with sensor size.

Or almost nothing. I am informed that there comes a point where is hard to get a large enough entry pupil on a small enough sensor, so for the absolute ultimate in DoF a bigger sensor is needed.

But for the sort of shallow DoF I used to get on FF, it is perfectly possible to make suitable lenses for MFT.

It's not the sensor that gets you shallow DoF. It's the size of the lens.
Steve2015 said:
greg57 said:
As many have mentioned, this argument is revealing far too much insecurity. One day, when I have the budget, I will get the D750 and a 35mm 1.8 because i know I cannot get the same effect with a m43 despite what you and Louis are saying:
Click to expand...
Ok, now you're going too far. I never once said you can get shallower dof with m4/3 over FF, I dont think Louis said that either, so don't even go there.
The insecurity is coming from the larger sensor crowd, what I've been doing is tackling myths, like wideangle dof with m4/3 and so on. The majority of my posts has been trying to eduate people here on what resolution means.

It's been proven you can achieve shallow dof with m4/3.
Click to expand...
 
jagge said:
jagge said:
I need to remove some of it but yes I have a few cameras :-) Don't forget the Sigma Merrills are effectively lenses with boxes on them. The GM1 is a great little camera if you keep the lenses small. The 12-32mm is excellent, I also have the 9-18mm and will probably get the 35-100mm F4-5.6. Actually the IQ from the GM1 matches the E-M1 most of the time IMHO and it all fits into a very small bag. Some people complain about the thumb dial but it's no problem to me and I have medium sized hands. It's a lot of fun to carry around and use when I really want to go light, works for me anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Louis_Dobson said:
It's not the sensor that gets you shallow DoF. It's the size of the lens.
Click to expand...
I agree, you can get shallower dof with a 75mm over a 12mm. In that scenario the sensor has no part to play regarding dof. The larger the aperture the shallower the dof.
 
Last edited:
Louis, I don't agree with your original post, but that aside you certainly have photo chops. Nice images on your blog and website.
 
Steve2015 said:
jagge said:
Or in other words your statement is just platin wrong, and the great thing is that its not even debatable, you are just wrong...stop embarresing your self just google it
Click to expand...
LOL and omg, whatever dude. It's not an opinion, it's a called a specification...google what that means.

Wow, I am truly gobsmacked at the number of members who don't understand what the term "resolution" really means.
I can't carry on with those who don't even understand the very basics of photography.
Click to expand...
HR mode on EM5II is only really useful with totally static scenes, when you have a tripod. For me that would be an exceptionally small percentage of shooting.

To compare HR mode to native resolution of a 5Ds, A7rII, D800, etc is simply foolish. It's a losing argument for anyone who has takes photos in the real world.

I own the EM5II btw, lovely camera, but HR mode is not magic nor is it comparable in this context.
 
Louis_Dobson said:
It's actually possible that a very shallow 35 is needed as well as a shallow 50 and 100.
I'm trying to keep it reasonably simple. I personally just never use that length (nice shot by the way).
greg57 said:
Steve2015 said:
greg57 said:
What part of "wide angle" don't you understand Steve?
Click to expand...
Are you blind, I amended my posts as well as providing alternate links for the 17.5 and 12mm.
Click to expand...
Yes I saw it afterwards. You know that you guys are preaching the converted here right? This being said, the examples that have been shown here about focus/background separation with wide angle are all of pictures taken near the minimum focus distance (with the 12mm that's what you'd need). As for the Vogtlander 17.5, it is manual focus, so niche application basically.

As many have mentioned, this argument is revealing far too much insecurity. One day, when I have the budget, I will get the D750 and a 35mm 1.8 because i know I cannot get the same effect with a m43 despite what you and Louis are saying:

a5f1692f48784bcbad997d7c2ee58a77.jpg

But I will also keep most of my m43 gear for the reasons we all know ;)

--
Gregory Dziedzic
gregorydziedzic.com/photos
Click to expand...
--
www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
Indeed, a good, fast and qualitative 35mm equ. is sorely needed (not my shot :) ).

--
Gregory Dziedzic
gregorydziedzic.com/photos
 
EarthQuake said:
HR mode on EM5II is only really useful with totally static scenes, when you have a tripod. For me that would be an exceptionally small percentage of shooting.
Click to expand...
This isn't about you though.
EarthQuake said:
To compare HR mode to native resolution of a 5Ds, A7rII, D800, etc is simply foolish. It's a losing argument for anyone who has takes photos in the real world.
Click to expand...
I'm not losing anything, fact of the matter is the em5 ii is capable of massive resolution. For pro's, real world use is in a studio, or in one of the given genre's that involve still photography. Buildings don't move, products don't move, food doesn't move yada yada yada.

This might be news to you, a m4/3 setup can yield sharper images than a D810, not an opinion, but an observation.
 
Last edited:
Steve2015 said:
EarthQuake said:
HR mode on EM5II is only really useful with totally static scenes, when you have a tripod. For me that would be an exceptionally small percentage of shooting.
Click to expand...
This isn't about you though.
Steve2015 said:
To compare HR mode to native resolution of a 5Ds, A7rII, D800, etc is simply foolish. It's a losing argument for anyone who has takes photos in the real world.
Click to expand...
I'm not losing anything, fact of the matter is the em5 ii is capable of massive resolution. For pro's, real world use is in a studio, or in one of the given genre's that involve still photography.
Click to expand...
If you have a totally static scene, like you need for the EM5II HR mode, you can use the same method (albeit with less automation) with higher native resolution cameras, and significantly out-resolve the EM5II yet again.

I'm not sure which subjects you shoot in a studio are static, do you shoot mannequins and statues rather than live human beings?

For product photography I can see it, but again, in the scope of real world use cases, this is but a small fraction.

Pros shoot in the field as well as the studio, would you use the HR mode for a wedding, sports, photojournalism? No, of course not, because it doesn't work there.

Claiming the EM5II HR mode beats higher native res cameras is just as dumb as DXO claiming thier DXO One camera outperforms DSLRs (because they merge multiple shots for better IQ). Sure, anyone can win a fight when they make up the rules to their liking, but compare on equal ground and things look different.
 
Last edited:
Fair enough. My observation is that almost all modern sensors (except maybe Canon) outperform screen and paper even when pulled and pushed, so I see no virtue in messing about. I think that's been the case since about 2012.

12EV is all that I feel any need for.
CharlesB58 said:
Talking about FF is only daft if DoF is the only reasoning behind it. For me it's not: I consider FF sensors for tonality of the dynamic range and resolution as it relates to cropping images. Ergo, DoF is not near the top of the list.
Click to expand...
 
EarthQuake said:
If you have a totally static scene, like you need for the EM5II, you can use the same method (albeit with less automation) with higher native resolution cameras, and significantly out-resolve the EM5II yet again.

I'm not sure which subjects you shoot in a studio are static, do you shoot mannequins and statues rather than live human beings?
Click to expand...
There are plenty of genre's that involve still life, I'm guessing you've never worked in a studio. I don't even know why you'd bring up mannequins or statues.
EarthQuake said:
For product photography I can see it, but again, in the scope of real world use cases, this is but a small fraction.
Click to expand...
Again, many genre's involve still life. the majority of studio togs would be using a tripod, as you would with larger sensor cameras. Camera stands are the norm in studios.
EarthQuake said:
Pros shoot in the field, would you use the HR mode for a wedding, sports, photojournalism? No, of course not, because it doesn't work there.
Click to expand...
We've already established hr mode is for still life, a lot of pro's also shoot in a studio, it's more of a controlled environment.

This is just going around in circles, I'm out.
 
Last edited:
The one thing I noticed about depth of field and m43 is in sports action shots. If the subject is some distance away its not as easy to isolate them. That may be rectified with the new Olympus 300 f4 lens. Other than that Im fine with the depth of field. That is more of a comment than complaint.
--
www.flickr.com

Anthony Gasparetto

Explore Anthony Gasparetto’s 485 photos on Flickr!
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
 
jagge said:
Steve2015 said:
Louis_Dobson said:
It's not the sensor that gets you shallow DoF. It's the size of the lens.
Click to expand...
I agree, you can get shallower dof with a 75mm over a 12mm. In that scenario the sensor has no part to play regarding dof. The larger the aperture the shallower the dof.
Click to expand...
Let me be the first to congratulate on a post that actually makes some sense
Click to expand...
Actually, it's a confusion and not what I was saying.

Take a lens with an entry pupil of 50mm.

Now design it to be either a 50mm MFT lens or a 100mm FF lens, covering the correct image circle. 50/50 (mft) = f1. This will be an f1 MFT lens. 100/50 = f2. This will be an f2 FF lens.

Each lens will weigh roughly the same, cost roughly the same to make, and will have the same DoF. DoF depends on entry pupil, not sensor size. The only real difference between these lenses? Oly or Panny will charge an arm and leg for the MFT one, because it says f1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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