M4/3 for portraits -- DOF not shallow?

mm3784

New member
Messages
9
Reaction score
2
I enjoy portrait photography, especially with Nikon 85mm and 105mm lenses on full-frame cameras.

My gear is old and needs an upgrade. I'm considering M4/3 systems because of their size.

I read that M4/3 lenses don't generate a shallow DOF, something which is useful for portraits.

Why exactly is this and is it really a problem for portraits?
 
Sensors larger than M4/3 offer the possibility for shallower depth of field. If you’re not familiar with the term “equivalence” in photography and want to learn more, you might try a search of this website. Whether your portraits will have “enough” shallow depth of field with M4/3 gear depends on what you consider acceptable. If size is an issue for you, the OM System 45 1.8 and 75 1.8 are two small primes that will allow background blur that’s sufficient for many photographers, including me. In fact, those lenses paired with one of the smaller M43 cameras offer a compact shooting experience that I don’t know how to replicate in other formats. It’s up to you decide the look you want and whether M4/3 can get you there. I hope that helps.
 
I read that M4/3 lenses don't generate a shallow DOF, something which is useful for portraits.
You cannot make such a blanket statement about “M4/3 lenses.”

Be reminded that shallow DOF depends on:
  • focal length
  • aperture
  • camera–subject distance
In addition, the background blurriness is affected by subject–background distance.

I use a G9 and a GX8, and I create portrait photographs with them fairly often.
 
I enjoy portrait photography, especially with Nikon 85mm and 105mm lenses on full-frame cameras.

My gear is old and needs an upgrade. I'm considering M4/3 systems because of their size.

I read that M4/3 lenses don't generate a shallow DOF, something which is useful for portraits.

Why exactly is this
because the sensor is smaller (e.g. phone sensors are smaller still and struggle to achieve any background blur in portraits without additional computational changes)
and is it really a problem for portraits?
depends how much OOF blur you want, and whether you're prepared to adapt

in general, assuming nothing else changes, your m43 lens will need to be 1/2 the focal length and twice as bright to achieve the same (equivalent) image as your FF gear

so taking your 85mm lens as an example, you need a 42.5mm m43 lens (a 45mm will achieve a FOV similar to a 90mm FF lens)

the aperture also needs to be halved to achieve similar background blur (again assuming everything else is equal - cameras, subjects, backgrounds all in the same position)

so if your FF lens has a max aperture of 1.8, and you shoot wide open, you would need a m43 lens with an aperture of 0.9 approx

and therein lies the "problem"

you'll likely get a bunch of unnecessarily long and complicated responses, or workarounds, but this is what it boils down to
 
Last edited:
If you like the look the 75/1.8, 45 and 42.5/1.2s, 25-50/1.7 have it in spades.

If you don't mind fiddling with MF lenses, there are f:0.9 options.

It's not an easy lens to wrangle but the four-thirds 35-100/2.0 adapts to m4/3 and is an amazing portrait zoom.

Cheers,

Rick
 
I enjoy portrait photography, especially with Nikon 85mm and 105mm lenses on full-frame cameras.
Nice!
My gear is old and needs an upgrade. I'm considering M4/3 systems because of their size.
Just to warn you, the size advantage M43 once enjoyed has vastly gone. This is due to camera manufactures abandoning camera lines and Full Frame companies slowly meeting the demand for smaller gear (except Canon).
I read that M4/3 lenses don't generate a shallow DOF, something which is useful for portraits.
It's harder to generate shallower DOF like with the Panasonic Leica 25mm 1.4 (50mm 2.8) but not impossible. But usually a lot of sensible photographers user pro zooms, or stop down with primes today 2.8 or 5.6.
Why exactly is this and is it really a problem for portraits?
Gavin from the B&H youtube channel use Olympus and OMD. He has no problem but he also use off camera flash which helps massively and far superior shooting a 85mm 1.2 wide open.

There are plenty of lenses for many of the Full Frame manufactures, Fuji and M43 to choose from for portraits.

M43 portrait and headshot lenses.
  • Olympus 17mm 1.8 and 1.2
  • Panasonic 25mm 1.4 and 1.7
  • Olympus 25mm 1.8 and 1.2
  • Panasonic 42mm 1.7 and 1.2
  • Olympus 45mm 1.8 and 1.2
  • Panasonic 45mm 2.8 Macro
  • Sigma 56mm 1.4?
  • Olympus Macro 60mm 2.8
  • Sigma 60mm 2.8?
  • Olympus 75mm 1.8
 
Not as shallow but shallow enough.

42.5 f1.2 should be decent although I don't own it myself.

I mean do you really want just one eye in focus like in the camera conspiracies video 😀
 
I enjoy portrait photography, especially with Nikon 85mm and 105mm lenses on full-frame cameras.

My gear is old and needs an upgrade. I'm considering M4/3 systems because of their size.

I read that M4/3 lenses don't generate a shallow DOF, something which is useful for portraits.

Why exactly is this
because the sensor is smaller (e.g. phone sensors are smaller still and struggle to achieve any background blur in portraits without additional computational changes)
and is it really a problem for portraits?
depends how much OOF blur you want, and whether you're prepared to adapt

in general, assuming nothing else changes, your m43 lens will need to be 1/2 the focal length and twice as bright to achieve the same (equivalent) image as your FF gear

so taking your 85mm lens as an example, you need a 42.5mm m43 lens (a 45mm will achieve a FOV similar to a 90mm FF lens)

the aperture also needs to be halved to achieve similar background blur (again assuming everything else is equal - cameras, subjects, backgrounds all in the same position)

so if your FF lens has a max aperture of 1.8, and you shoot wide open, you would need a m43 lens with an aperture of 0.9 approx

and therein lies the "problem"

you'll likely get a bunch of unnecessarily long and complicated responses, or workarounds, but this is what it boils down to
The Voigtlaender 42.5/0.95 comes to mind - a beautiful lens but MF.

A
 
OP here. Thanks for the helpful replies. The concept of "equivalency" is what I needed to learn. I thought it only referred to focal lengths, but apparently it also refers to f-stops.

Also, I did not realize DOF depends on the physical aperture size and not the f-stop number. In other words, I thought f/2.0 gave the same DOF on different lenses if they had equivalent focal lengths, as in 25 mm for m43 and 50 mm for FF. I was wrong about this.
 
OP here. Thanks for the helpful replies. The concept of "equivalency" is what I needed to learn. I thought it only referred to focal lengths, but apparently it also refers to f-stops.

Also, I did not realize DOF depends on the physical aperture size and not the f-stop number. In other words, I thought f/2.0 gave the same DOF on different lenses if they had equivalent focal lengths, as in 25 mm for m43 and 50 mm for FF. I was wrong about this.
Apart from aspect ratio, equivalence is FL/2, f-stop/2 and ISO/4 on MFT to get the same DoF, AoV, shutter speed and noise as FF. This is a crude approximation, depending on camera JPEG engine, metering, lens T-stop and exact FL and aperture.

You hit a wall with f-stops below about f1.8 because lens design gets harder. F1.4 is sort of OK - PL 25/1.4 and Sigma 56/1.4 for example. If you are happy with f2.8 in FF then that works. MFT lenses tend to be designed to work wide open more than FF ones.

A
 
Just to warn you, the size advantage M43 once enjoyed has vastly gone. This is due to camera manufactures abandoning camera lines and Full Frame companies slowly meeting the demand for smaller gear (except Canon).
The size advantage continues to exist with certain M4/3 lenses, like the 45 1.8 and 75 1.8, wouldn’t you say?
 


Nice one Carlos. 🍻

You might check out this post from today:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60595979
Nice one Bast 🍻.



Just now purchased. As well as replied to Loga 🍻☕️ on original thread.

2de08c73877f42e893034e293e51335c.jpg

37-49 step up ring required for my Oly 45/1.8.

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.
 
Last edited:
I enjoy portrait photography, especially with Nikon 85mm and 105mm lenses on full-frame cameras.

My gear is old and needs an upgrade. I'm considering M4/3 systems because of their size.
I purchased Viltrox 0.71 focal reducer in Ef mount for my m4/3.

Placed Yongnuo 100/2 Ef mount on Viltrox 0.71 becomes approx 71mm f/1.4 (equivalent approx 142mm f/2.8 in 35mm full frame).

Viltrox 0.71 focal reducer in Ef mount on my m4/3 Gx7. Yongnuo 100/2 on Viltrox 0.71 becomes approx 71mm f/1.4 (equivalent 142mm f/2.8 in 35mm full frame).
Viltrox 0.71 focal reducer in Ef mount on my m4/3 Gx7. Yongnuo 100/2 on Viltrox 0.71 becomes approx 71mm f/1.4 (equivalent 142mm f/2.8 in 35mm full frame).



--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.
 

Attachments

  • 1b8c9f2f80d2479799f7a45d3cee1498.jpg
    1b8c9f2f80d2479799f7a45d3cee1498.jpg
    612.6 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Last edited:
Ironically (because here I am with all my supertelephoto lenses now), I would have killed to have had that tele conversion lens on my first camera (a Contaflex II, which BTW had the brightest viewfinder of any SLR I've ever seen despite being an f/2.8 lens).
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top