Reading mode: Light Dark

M4/3 for portraits -- DOF not shallow?

Go to last post
mm3784 said:
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?
Click to expand...
On your 85mmm & 105mm, what is your aperture setting you traditionally use?

F4, F2.8, F2, F1.8, F1.4 ?

If you are using an F4 or F2.8, this can easily be obtained with Olympus/OM and Panasonic/Lumix glass. Lower than F2.8 you will need to consider expensive and heavy manual focus lenses from Voigtlander F0.9 lenses.

The cheapest option is to use a telephoto lens such as MFT 100mm to obtain the shallow DOF. A rough equivalency breakdown:

MFT 45mm ~ FF 90mm

MFT 50mm ~ FF 100mmm

MFT F4 ~ FF F8 (but F4 in light gathering)

MFT F2.8 ~ FF F4 (but F2.8 in light gathering.
 
I gave my daughter my Olympus 45mm F1.4 because I ended up using my 40-150mm F2.8 PRO at 100mm for any portrait work and the 45mm was just collecting dust. (I agree with you)
 
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany said:
To context or not to context.

That is the question or is it. 🤔

More context deeper dof, lesser context shallower dof.

[ o ]

I just had a look at what f stop Afgan Girl National Geographic was photographed. Although I knew it was Nikkor 105/2.5 didn't know what f stop.

Could place Zuiko Digital 45/1.2 or any manual focus 50/1.2 55/1.2 on a m4/3 to get near enough 105/2.5 on full frame.
Click to expand...
The MFT portrait lens to rule them all:

60 mm / 1:0.95 Nokton MFT - Voigtländer

www.voigtlaender.de www.voigtlaender.de

Video review:


However, due to size and weight, the lens is properly balanced only on a GH6/7 and G9.2.

The lens is heavy and awkward on the OM-1 (from personal experience)
 
BudgetTraveller said:
mm3784 said:
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?
Click to expand...
It's not quite true. Both the Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.2 and Olympus 45mm f/1.2 can produce an equivalent DOF of a full frame 90mm f/2.5 lens. If you want something a bit more shallower than f/2.5, then full frame is the only choice.
Click to expand...
Not true. There are plenty of manual focus native MFT mount lenses in F0.9 and F0.8 from cheaper Chinese to expensive German.

BudgetTraveller said:
But f/1.2 and f/2 portrait full frame lenses are not cheap and are not small either. Are they truly necessary? I mean, you would only get 1 eye sharp and the other eye not so sharp. Maybe the nose or mouth not sharp.

The reason why M4/3 lenses can not generate shallower DOF than full frame is the focal length. It's 2x shorter than its equivalent FF focal length. So a 25mm focal length lens gives you an equivalent of a 50mm FF lens and a shorter focal length lens gives you a wider DOF than a longer focal length lens. The crop sensor necessitates the use of shorter focal length lenses. To make up for this shortfall, we have ultrafast primes to allow you to create shallower DOF.

Is 90mm f/2.5 eqv FF a problem for your portraits? What's your style? One eye focus and the other eye out of focus or you like an eye sharp and everything else out of focus, like someone wearing an invisible balaclava? Then m43 may not be for you.

There is a small subset of people who do these full frame f/1.2 and f/2 portraits, but they are not indicative of what most professional portrait photographers do. The widest aperture these professionals use is f/3.2, which both the m43 portrait fast primes are more than capable to deal with.
Click to expand...
 
I fullheartedly agree, the question is, is it shallow ENOUGH

The 45 1.8 is a fine portrait lens--and I bet you showed it away in your ski jacket pocket, along with a compact EM5 or PEN series, to take some serendipitous shots on the slopes ;)

The best camera is the one you bring to the shot, and more than likely the camera you bring to any place INTERESTING will be compact and have a small lens. No one skis, kayaks, or hikes for miles to remote locations to find that rare animal with 10 lbs of glass.

Folks on these forums need to consider the BIG PICTURE

I often carry the 45 1.8 in my pants pocket, it is like im carrying nothing. Amazing secondary lens. The aperture is great and allows for unexpected applications. I shot the atlas comet recently with it over a nice landscape.
 
Last edited:
45/1.8 is a terrific portrait lens and its drawback is its secret: field curvature wide open enhances the shallow DoF, giving the subject more pop.

Mind, I like the 45/1.2 even more but at a mere 3X the price I should.

Hoping the 45 is included in the next OMS upgrade round--adding weatherproofing and a metal case.

Rick
 
Last edited:
mm3784 said:
Why exactly is this and is it really a problem for portraits?
Click to expand...
Not a lot of fast lenses. 45/1.2 is fine if you're not shooting full body.
 
peter ny said:
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.
Click to expand...
BTW “equivalence” is on the side of every OM System box and is a core design reference in all m43 instruction manuals. 135 or 35mm is the industry benchmark design standard.
 
I don't know why, but you seem to love lying to yourself!
 
JNK 100 said:
jaymc said:
JNK 100 said:
Maoby said:
Here is a comparison I made with this tiny 45mm f/1.8 and the enormous Fuji XF 56mm f/1.2

https://www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72177720304668393/
Click to expand...
Night and day. These show the benefits of a larger sensor very well indeed.
Click to expand...
Here's a good video showing the same concept.
Click to expand...
This video shows a very significant FF advantage.
Click to expand...
The FF advantage in this video:

FF kit: $8200 (3.7kg)

vs

M43 kit: $3500 (1.5kg)

Conclusion: the FF looks better. I would sure hope so!
 
Blastfemur said:
peter ny said:
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.
Click to expand...
BTW “equivalence” is on the side of every OM System box and is a core design reference in all m43 instruction manuals. 135 or 35mm is the industry benchmark design standard.
Click to expand...
Very early Oly 4/3 lenses had a sticker displaying the 135 equivalent focal lengths, in addition to the imprinted actual ones.

Helpful? Opinions differ.
 
To my eye the loveliest, creamiest blur or bokeh comes out of the m43 primes faster than f1.8. That doesn't mean the f1.8/1.7 lenses won't make excellent portraits, though. It's a tradeoff of size, weight, and price. I'm not big on portraiture with blur, more into scenes with focused DOF, so the teeny sharp f1.8/1.7 primes or the Oly 12-45 F4 PRO Zoom suit me very well.

For portraits with blur and beautiful bokeh I've been knocked out by images from the Olympus 20mm F1.4 PRO. Its 40mm equivalent focal length isn't a classic portrait range, it's more optimal for environmental portraiture. But for environmental portraiture with bokeh it is really something. And its weight of around 250 grams isn't too out there.
 
Last edited:
Skeeterbytes said:
45/1.8 is a terrific portrait lens and its drawback is its secret: field curvature wide open enhances the shallow DoF, giving the subject more pop.

Mind, I like the 45/1.2 even more but at a mere 3X the price I should.

Hoping the 45 is included in the next OMS upgrade round--adding weatherproofing and a metal case.

Rick
Click to expand...
Honestly, if they only add weatherproofing and keep the heavy duty plastic, it would be even better.

One of the main advantages of this lens is that it's super small and light, making it metal would significantly increase the weight. I have a Fujifilm 35mm f/2 which is about the same size, but metal built : it's way heavier. I can carry the 45mm f/1.8 in a pocket and not feel it, not possible to do with the Fuji 35
 
As other people have pointed out the depth of field is controlled by a number of factors, focal length, and distance. For the same framing you will have more DOF with M43 because the focal length is shorter, however you can still get very shallow DOF without trying too hard if you want, including making it so shallow that only one eye is in focus.

Here’s an every day example from my OM1.2 when playing with the Sigma 56mm

6230dc2d85844c73bf6858f1170cd1b1.jpg

--
James
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamestux/
http://www.jamestux.com
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
M4/3 or not?
Replies
3
Views
35K
john isaacs
J
H
Best Panasonic m4/3 Camera
Replies
12
Views
4K
markx_2
M
H
Best m4/3 Camera(s) currently
Replies
11
Views
4K
ttbirds
T
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany
** This Fortnight with your m4/3 : March 17 - March 30 **
2
Replies
39
Views
912
Matt Chambers
M
S
GAS problems, a morning beach walk might help...
Replies
19
Views
1K
stephent
S

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