Reading mode: Light Dark

m4/3 for environmental portrait

Go to last post
S

Space the final frontier

Senior Member
Messages
1,241
Solutions
1
Reaction score
1,156
I was on vacation with my family over the December holiday, which also meant a lot of family pictures. This is actually the first time I have used my m4/3 system exclusively for any trip. Many of these family pictures can be considered as environmental portraits (if there is such a term) in that the subject is of course important but so was the background to a lesser degree. Blurring the background beyond recognition is not the purpose and in fact undesirable.

In the past with APS-c, I found it difficult to balance between the needed DOF and shutter speed, especially under challenging but more interesting light conditions. But with m4/3, it was very easy to achieve the desired balance while maintaining low ISO. The end results were visually better imo. I cannot share any pictures because of they involve people, I hope you will understand.
 
I don't understand. If you're saying you like having "that much more" of the environment in focus and you can do that with m 4/3 but not DX, it makes no sense -- partly because the vast majority of environmental portraits you see published are created with FX chips or their size-equivalent predecessor --35mm film.

But if your gear enables you to take the best images you can, that's the important thing.
 
I sure do understand sir....Certainly you can get a table that will give you a sense of the depth of field with a given f stop and from there you should have not trouble in balancing sufficent sharpness. In that respect I have found nothing so different in micro four thirds. You can also eye ball the image in the finder and then press the stop down function. Try that a couple times for the distances you have in mind. Yes, micro four thirds has oft been slammed for not giving OOF background and you have come up with a more positive side of things. And I myself agree with you. I like to see the background more often than not. Thanks for the thumbs up to sharp front to back of the room. Blur is just blur some of the time. N'est ce pas?
 
Last edited:
Sir Pics A Lot said:
I don't get it. Can't you stop down your aps-c camera one stop and raise the iso one stop? How would m4/3 give you an advantage?
Click to expand...
I did qualify my comment with the constraint of low ISO " But with m4/3, it was very easy to achieve the desired balance while maintaining low ISO." Under low light conditions, it is not always possible by just pumping up ISO. Try it yourself and you may get it.
 
Space the final frontier said:
Sir Pics A Lot said:
I don't get it. Can't you stop down your aps-c camera one stop and raise the iso one stop? How would m4/3 give you an advantage?
Click to expand...
I did qualify my comment with the constraint of low ISO " But with m4/3, it was very easy to achieve the desired balance while maintaining low ISO." Under low light conditions, it is not always possible by just pumping up ISO. Try it yourself and you may get it.
Click to expand...
But with aps-c, you can go a stop higher ISO and achieve the same noise performance. You need to try it and you may get it. I use multiple formats and understand the difference.
 
Sir Pics A Lot said:
Space the final frontier said:
Sir Pics A Lot said:
I don't get it. Can't you stop down your aps-c camera one stop and raise the iso one stop? How would m4/3 give you an advantage?
Click to expand...
I did qualify my comment with the constraint of low ISO " But with m4/3, it was very easy to achieve the desired balance while maintaining low ISO." Under low light conditions, it is not always possible by just pumping up ISO. Try it yourself and you may get it.
Click to expand...
But with aps-c, you can go a stop higher ISO and achieve the same noise performance. You need to try it and you may get it. I use multiple formats and understand the difference.
Click to expand...
I am a dual system user and FF and APS-c users for decades, I do know it first hand. You need to read more thoroughly.
 
m43 allows one to get deeper DOF without having to raise ISO and stop down, but a larger format is going to allow you to raise the ISO a bit and still be as sharp as m43 at base ISO... So I'd say that there isn't a clear winner for deep DOF, it's really a wash between the two...

The best that you could say is that if you like to shoot with deep DOF that there isn't so much of a penalty using a smaller format. I guess that's the way that I feel about it. I like deep DOF much more often than shallow and I feel that though the IQ of m43 generally lags a bit behind the bigger formats, that for that type of shooting the penalty is much more modest...
 
Space the final frontier said:
Sir Pics A Lot said:
Space the final frontier said:
Sir Pics A Lot said:
I don't get it. Can't you stop down your aps-c camera one stop and raise the iso one stop? How would m4/3 give you an advantage?
Click to expand...
I did qualify my comment with the constraint of low ISO " But with m4/3, it was very easy to achieve the desired balance while maintaining low ISO." Under low light conditions, it is not always possible by just pumping up ISO. Try it yourself and you may get it.
Click to expand...
But with aps-c, you can go a stop higher ISO and achieve the same noise performance. You need to try it and you may get it. I use multiple formats and understand the difference.
Click to expand...
I am a dual system user and FF and APS-c users for decades, I do know it first hand. You need to read more thoroughly.
Click to expand...
For the same DOF same shutter speed you would need to shoot the APS camera at a one stop higher ISO. So you could shoot 1600ISO on your m43 while shooting 3200ISO on your Pentax APS. The Pentax has better high ISO performance so the end results would be images with much the same DOF , same shutter speed and same noise . Though the 24mp APS in your K3II at the same output size as your GX85 would probably still sneak a tad ahead. So the only gain { and it can be a very important consideration for some } is the potential for a smaller set up as long as you keep away from those 1.2 PRO lenses :-)

800 vs 1600 ISO & 1600 vs 3200 ISO



fba49d911cc34bd2856280456754deb5.jpg









--
Jim Stirling
 
Space the final frontier said:
I was on vacation with my family over the December holiday, which also meant a lot of family pictures. This is actually the first time I have used my m4/3 system exclusively for any trip. Many of these family pictures can be considered as environmental portraits (if there is such a term) in that the subject is of course important but so was the background to a lesser degree. Blurring the background beyond recognition is not the purpose and in fact undesirable.

In the past with APS-c, I found it difficult to balance between the needed DOF and shutter speed, especially under challenging but more interesting light conditions. But with m4/3, it was very easy to achieve the desired balance while maintaining low ISO. The end results were visually better imo. I cannot share any pictures because of they involve people, I hope you will understand.
Click to expand...
Not quite sure what your getting at here, you don`t always need great dof for an environmental portrait provided the chosen dof shows what is desired of that persons natural environment, its all pretty easy with M4/3 and it was all pretty easy with a basic box brownie using 120 film ( a huge sensor size compared to even 35mm)

Environmental portraits can also be shot wide open with very little dof ie a chef working away in his kitchen, you might not need to include the kitchen but his whites and hat tells you who he is and what he does giving the game away, very little dof but it is still an environmental portrait.

You need to be looking beyond that of dof, concentrate on what matters to you and not the numb skulls :)

Loads of good examples here
 
Last edited:
samtheman2014 said:
Space the final frontier said:
Sir Pics A Lot said:
Space the final frontier said:
Sir Pics A Lot said:
I don't get it. Can't you stop down your aps-c camera one stop and raise the iso one stop? How would m4/3 give you an advantage?
Click to expand...
I did qualify my comment with the constraint of low ISO " But with m4/3, it was very easy to achieve the desired balance while maintaining low ISO." Under low light conditions, it is not always possible by just pumping up ISO. Try it yourself and you may get it.
Click to expand...
But with aps-c, you can go a stop higher ISO and achieve the same noise performance. You need to try it and you may get it. I use multiple formats and understand the difference.
Click to expand...
I am a dual system user and FF and APS-c users for decades, I do know it first hand. You need to read more thoroughly.
Click to expand...
For the same DOF same shutter speed you would need to shoot the APS camera at a one stop higher ISO. So you could shoot 1600ISO on your m43 while shooting 3200ISO on your Pentax APS. The Pentax has better high ISO performance so the end results would be images with much the same DOF , same shutter speed and same noise . Though the 24mp APS in your K3II at the same output size as your GX85 would probably still sneak a tad ahead. So the only gain { and it can be a very important consideration for some } is the potential for a smaller set up as long as you keep away from those 1.2 PRO lenses :-)

800 vs 1600 ISO & 1600 vs 3200 ISO

fba49d911cc34bd2856280456754deb5.jpg

--
Jim Stirling
Click to expand...
Good comparison. While I have the exactly these two camera bodies, the reality is not exactly as the comparison. Perhaps it was the size and weight, which are the reason for having m4/3. f/1.2 are not on my radar at all no matter how good they are.
 
But doesn't refraction kick in that much sooner too?
 
Aaron801 said:
m43 allows one to get deeper DOF without having to raise ISO and stop down, but a larger format is going to allow you to raise the ISO a bit and still be as sharp as m43 at base ISO... So I'd say that there isn't a clear winner for deep DOF, it's really a wash between the two...
Click to expand...
There are other factors that come into play like resolution . For example assuming the same output size between my two mirrorless systems GX8 and Sony A7r II the extra detail advantage allows for significant flexibility in processing. I think that they do not factor this into the considerations enough.

100% comparison at maximum GX8 resolution , GX8 200 ISO A7rII 1600 ISO using the respective DPreview RAW samples . Both files opened with ACR defaults only change was to resize A7rII to the same as GX8 . This is why I am an advocate of both a lower base ISO and higher MP count for m43 :-) If we had say a 50 base ISO and 28-30mp m43 the gap would be much narrower.



8e9cc4c529074500906f76cae1849189.jpg







--
Jim Stirling
 
Space the final frontier said:
samtheman2014 said:
Space the final frontier said:
Sir Pics A Lot said:
Space the final frontier said:
Sir Pics A Lot said:
I don't get it. Can't you stop down your aps-c camera one stop and raise the iso one stop? How would m4/3 give you an advantage?
Click to expand...
I did qualify my comment with the constraint of low ISO " But with m4/3, it was very easy to achieve the desired balance while maintaining low ISO." Under low light conditions, it is not always possible by just pumping up ISO. Try it yourself and you may get it.
Click to expand...
But with aps-c, you can go a stop higher ISO and achieve the same noise performance. You need to try it and you may get it. I use multiple formats and understand the difference.
Click to expand...
I am a dual system user and FF and APS-c users for decades, I do know it first hand. You need to read more thoroughly.
Click to expand...
For the same DOF same shutter speed you would need to shoot the APS camera at a one stop higher ISO. So you could shoot 1600ISO on your m43 while shooting 3200ISO on your Pentax APS. The Pentax has better high ISO performance so the end results would be images with much the same DOF , same shutter speed and same noise . Though the 24mp APS in your K3II at the same output size as your GX85 would probably still sneak a tad ahead. So the only gain { and it can be a very important consideration for some } is the potential for a smaller set up as long as you keep away from those 1.2 PRO lenses :-)

800 vs 1600 ISO & 1600 vs 3200 ISO

fba49d911cc34bd2856280456754deb5.jpg

--
Jim Stirling
Click to expand...
Good comparison. While I have the exactly these two camera bodies, the reality is not exactly as the comparison. Perhaps it was the size and weight, which are the reason for having m4/3. f/1.2 are not on my radar at all no matter how good they are.
Click to expand...
Size and weight is a major consideration in some situations and I am certainly not trying to discount it . I love small m43 lenses like the 20mm F/1.7

--
Jim Stirling
 
Space the final frontier said:
In the past with APS-c, I found it difficult to balance between the needed DOF and shutter speed, especially under challenging but more interesting light conditions. But with m4/3, it was very easy to achieve the desired balance while maintaining low ISO.
Click to expand...
absolutely zero advantage over APSC (or FF, MF, etc.) in gaining more DOF. None. Nada. Zip.

There is approximately 1 stop difference between m43 and APSC in terms of DOF and ISO performance. Meaning f2.8 on m43 is like f4 on APSC and ISO 200 on m43 is like ISO 400 on APSC.

So if f2.8 and ISO 200 gets you the needed DOF on m43, then F4 and ISO 400 will return EXACTLY the same results on APSC.

It is a total misunderstanding of photography basics that make people think a smaller format has an inherent advantage of larger DOF. This would only be correct if all cameras had a fixed ISO that was exactly the same.

--
Jonathan
 
Last edited:
jwilliams said:
Space the final frontier said:
In the past with APS-c, I found it difficult to balance between the needed DOF and shutter speed, especially under challenging but more interesting light conditions. But with m4/3, it was very easy to achieve the desired balance while maintaining low ISO.
Click to expand...
absolutely zero advantage over APSC (or FF, MF, etc.) in gaining more DOF. None. Nada. Zip.

There is approximately 1 stop difference between m43 and APSC in terms of DOF and ISO performance. Meaning f2.8 on m43 is like f4 on APSC and ISO 200 on m43 is like ISO 400 on APSC.

So if f2.8 and ISO 200 gets you the needed DOF on m43, then F4 and ISO 400 will return EXACTLY the same results on APSC.

It is a total misunderstanding of photography basics that make people think a smaller format has an inherent advantage of larger DOF. This would only be correct if all cameras had a fixed ISO that was exactly the same.
Click to expand...
 
I can see that using an auto setting different formats will tend to pick similar f4-f8 apertures in good light so m43 would be like f8-f16 on FF for depth of field. Lenses of standardish focal length or longer on FF would defocus the backgrounds noticably more than m43 equivalent focal length at the same f4-f8 apertures. So on auto m43 would show on average more background detail for "Here I am standing in front of xxxxxx landmark" shots... m43 on auto would be more pleasing if you want to see what is in the baxkground.
 
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