M4/3 for portraits -- DOF not shallow?

MJ_Photo38 · Jul 28, 2025

JNK 100 said:
HicHic said:

JNK 100 said:

So -if I have a FF 50mm AF f1.4 or faster lens please would someone tell me what the M43 equivalent is please

Click to expand...

25/0.7

Click to expand...

I look forward to it's launch

You have a kind of similar lens with the Voightländer 29mm f/0.8

Though I'll be honest I don't know what kind of real-world application would need the DoF of a 50mm f/1.4 on FF.

I use a 40m f/2 and 50mm f/1.8 on my Nikon Z6 and I'm constantly closing down because the depth of field is too shallow.

Wanting to have it is something, and there are indeed shots taken at f/1.4 on 50mm lenses that look great. But the same shots could have been made with an f/2, or even f/2.8.

The OP was mostly about asking if it was impossible to get shallow DoF on a MFT camera : it's not.

The real question is not how to match full frame (you really can't), but how thin you need your DoF to be... and more often than not it's too shallow on full frame, unless you're using a tight aperture lens.

--
(G.A.S. and collectionnite will get my skin one day)

JNK 100 · Jul 28, 2025

MJ_Photo38 said:
JNK 100 said:

HicHic said:

JNK 100 said:

So -if I have a FF 50mm AF f1.4 or faster lens please would someone tell me what the M43 equivalent is please

Click to expand...

25/0.7

Click to expand...

I look forward to it's launch

Click to expand...

You have a kind of similar lens with the Voightländer 29mm f/0.8

Though I'll be honest I don't know what kind of real-world application would need the DoF of a 50mm f/1.4 on FF.

I use a 40m f/2 and 50mm f/1.8 on my Nikon Z6 and I'm constantly closing down because the depth of field is too shallow.

Wanting to have it is something, and there are indeed shots taken at f/1.4 on 50mm lenses that look great. But the same shots could have been made with an f/2, or even f/2.8.

The OP was mostly about asking if it was impossible to get shallow DoF on a MFT camera : it's not.

The real question is not how to match full frame (you really can't), but how thin you need your DoF to be... and more often than not it's too shallow on full frame, unless you're using a tight aperture lens.

MJ_Photo38 · Jul 28, 2025

JNK 100 said:
MJ_Photo38 said:

JNK 100 said:

HicHic said:

JNK 100 said:

So -if I have a FF 50mm AF f1.4 or faster lens please would someone tell me what the M43 equivalent is please

Click to expand...

25/0.7

Click to expand...

I look forward to it's launch

Click to expand...

You have a kind of similar lens with the Voightländer 29mm f/0.8

Though I'll be honest I don't know what kind of real-world application would need the DoF of a 50mm f/1.4 on FF.

I use a 40m f/2 and 50mm f/1.8 on my Nikon Z6 and I'm constantly closing down because the depth of field is too shallow.

Wanting to have it is something, and there are indeed shots taken at f/1.4 on 50mm lenses that look great. But the same shots could have been made with an f/2, or even f/2.8.

The OP was mostly about asking if it was impossible to get shallow DoF on a MFT camera : it's not.

The real question is not how to match full frame (you really can't), but how thin you need your DoF to be... and more often than not it's too shallow on full frame, unless you're using a tight aperture lens.

Click to expand...

It's MF only though

Well yes, that's kind of the the whole deal with Voightländer.

JNK 100 said:
A lot of my shots are taken at f1.4 50mm FF

That's cool. You probably don't need it to be that wide to have basically the same shot, though.

JNK 100 · Jul 28, 2025

MJ_Photo38 said:
JNK 100 said:

MJ_Photo38 said:

JNK 100 said:

HicHic said:

JNK 100 said:

So -if I have a FF 50mm AF f1.4 or faster lens please would someone tell me what the M43 equivalent is please

Click to expand...

25/0.7

Click to expand...

I look forward to it's launch

Click to expand...

You have a kind of similar lens with the Voightländer 29mm f/0.8

Though I'll be honest I don't know what kind of real-world application would need the DoF of a 50mm f/1.4 on FF.

I use a 40m f/2 and 50mm f/1.8 on my Nikon Z6 and I'm constantly closing down because the depth of field is too shallow.

Wanting to have it is something, and there are indeed shots taken at f/1.4 on 50mm lenses that look great. But the same shots could have been made with an f/2, or even f/2.8.

The OP was mostly about asking if it was impossible to get shallow DoF on a MFT camera : it's not.

The real question is not how to match full frame (you really can't), but how thin you need your DoF to be... and more often than not it's too shallow on full frame, unless you're using a tight aperture lens.

Click to expand...

It's MF only though

Click to expand...

Well yes, that's kind of the the whole deal with Voightländer.

MJ_Photo38 said:

A lot of my shots are taken at f1.4 50mm FF

Click to expand...

That's cool. You probably don't need it to be that wide to have basically the same shot, though.

--

Perhaps not but it is certainly nice to have the option.

MJ_Photo38 said:
(G.A.S. and collectionnite will get my skin one day)

MJ_Photo38 · Jul 28, 2025

JNK 100 said:
MJ_Photo38 said:

JNK 100 said:

A lot of my shots are taken at f1.4 50mm FF

Click to expand...

That's cool. You probably don't need it to be that wide to have basically the same shot, though.

Click to expand...

Perhaps not but it is certainly nice to have the option.

Sure ! I'm glad to have the option as well with my own full frame camera when I'm using it.

But I also cannot recall the last time I was using a MFT camera and telling myself "what if I could completely obliterate the back ground here?"

Sam Bennett · Jul 28, 2025

MJ_Photo38 said:
JNK 100 said:

MJ_Photo38 said:

JNK 100 said:

A lot of my shots are taken at f1.4 50mm FF

Click to expand...

That's cool. You probably don't need it to be that wide to have basically the same shot, though.

Click to expand...

Perhaps not but it is certainly nice to have the option.

Click to expand...

Sure ! I'm glad to have the option as well with my own full frame camera when I'm using it.

But I also cannot recall the last time I was using a MFT camera and telling myself "what if I could completely obliterate the back ground here?"

Whether you're "completely obliterating" the background or not at f/1.4 really depends on the composition. For me, I use my FF gear in situations where I'm doing full-body shots (which I would call a form of "environmental portraiture") and I want more background separation to minimize ugly backgrounds.

This is a complete unedited shot from the S5 II and the 50/1.8 wide open. At f/1.4, the background would be cleaner and, IMO, "better". And this is where MFT would really suffer and have a more distracting background.

Personally the added weight and expense of f/1.4 FF lenses isn't worth the benefit. But being able to use f/1.8 primes on FF for this type of work has been the sweet spot balancing price/weight/performance.

--
Sam Bennett
Instagram: @swiftbennett

imrryr38 · Jul 28, 2025

HicHic said:
imrryr38 said:

a bit more harder than FF by the physic laws but totally sufficient in most cases.

first you don't need an ultra wide aperture all the time ! autoportrait

second, yes you can have great bokeh in M4/3 world , there is plenty of good lenses

third, with cheap lenses like 45 1.8 but even better with mighty pro lenses 1.2 or sigma 56mm1.4

they works all very well and help you is low light conditions

i'm perfectly happy with M4/3 ... FF for me has advantage with semi to wide angle lenses but my taste is 50mm or 90mm

the pro lenses especially have a elegant rendering ...really

isnt it ?

i adore what i can have with M4/3

thanks all

Click to expand...

You'll only ever get that amount of subject separation in M43 by cutting off the subject's body and filling the frame, removing all context. This series is a great demonstration of that.

and ?

nothing wrong with that ....i have said that FF was more ideal for semi wide (35mm) angle to wide angle for subject isolation...

but you can achieve good to very good bokeh with M4/3...it isn't impossible mission.

and if you use a good f2.8 ( yes i know 5.6 in FF !!!) telezoom i'm pretty sure you can have good enough separation with the background thanks to compression effect.

yes yes yes, we all know about the power of full frame .... but just don't put a shame on M4/3 please.

the first question was about 50mm to 135mm and portraitures... not 35mm1.4L contextual blurry things ...between Kasey ( camera conspiracies) and Tony the Toney, i have choose my camp. say hello to Tony and blur the world ;-)

put a human 3/4 to full body front of the red corner and i'm sure there will be enough smooth context.

imrryr38 · Jul 28, 2025

Zeiss4me 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...

I use both Sony FF and MFT cameras and lenses. You can certainly get extremely shallow depth of field shots with FF cameras and f1.4 or f1.8 lenses with shallower depth of field than with MFT equipment. However, I find the faster f1.2 OM Pro lenses, OM 75/1.8 and PL 42.5/1.2 give me a shallow enough depth of field for my purposes. Here are a few examples from a recent photoshoot.

If you are interested in checking out more of my portraits, I've posted a few on Instagram under portraitsbyjsc. About 1/2 are with my Sony FF system and 1/2 with my OM system.

great stuff Man

MJ_Photo38 · Jul 28, 2025

imrryr38 said:
and ?

nothing wrong with that ....i have said that FF was more ideal for semi wide (35mm) angle to wide angle for subject isolation...

but you can achieve good to very good bokeh with M4/3...it isn't impossible mission.

and if you use a good f2.8 ( yes i know 5.6 in FF !!!) telezoom i'm pretty sure you can have good enough separation with the background thanks to compression effect.

yes yes yes, we all know about the power of full frame .... but just don't put a shame on M4/3 please.

the first question was about 50mm to 135mm and portraitures... not 35mm1.4L contextual blurry things ...between Kasey ( camera conspiracies) and Tony the Toney, i have choose my camp. say hello to Tony and blur the world ;-)

put a human 3/4 to full body front of the red corner and i'm sure there will be enough smooth context.

Absolutely not related to the discussion at hand, but there is a great pastry right on the left of this gallery, I was going there a lot when I was living there !

--
(G.A.S. and collectionnite will get my skin one day)

Tom Caldwell · Jul 28, 2025

MJ_Photo38 said:
JNK 100 said:

HicHic said:

JNK 100 said:

So -if I have a FF 50mm AF f1.4 or faster lens please would someone tell me what the M43 equivalent is please

Click to expand...

25/0.7

Click to expand...

I look forward to it's launch

Click to expand...

You have a kind of similar lens with the Voightländer 29mm f/0.8

Though I'll be honest I don't know what kind of real-world application would need the DoF of a 50mm f/1.4 on FF.

I use a 40m f/2 and 50mm f/1.8 on my Nikon Z6 and I'm constantly closing down because the depth of field is too shallow.

Wanting to have it is something, and there are indeed shots taken at f/1.4 on 50mm lenses that look great. But the same shots could have been made with an f/2, or even f/2.8.

The OP was mostly about asking if it was impossible to get shallow DoF on a MFT camera : it's not.

The real question is not how to match full frame (you really can't), but how thin you need your DoF to be... and more often than not it's too shallow on full frame, unless you're using a tight aperture lens.

Quite right - I am not quite sure why we have to get a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that there are M4/3 mount lenses to be had as fast as f0.95. The OP wanted to know if M4/3 offered a lens that had narrow dof characteristics.

Immediately we get a reaction that 4/3 cannot match FF. Shrug ... who cares? but M4/3 can provide substantial background blur if that is the only criterion.

The issue really is that f0.95, even on 4/3, is a very narrow dof and has to be used wisely and with some skill. Not every photographic situation or photographer needs f0.95 and I doubt that photographing children is one of them. I found that I would have to take some time to finesse a portrait at f0.95 and even with the 4/3 sensor there is such a situation where f0.95 is too shallow a dof. However every f0.95 lens can be stopped down to suit a situation.

That a cheap shot that Chinese lenses made for f0.95 are "not good" must come from someone who has never bought one*. They are in fact quite well made but users, including myself, have to overcome the difficulties of good photography at f0.95 and manual focus at the same time. It does take some patience and photographic style adjustment.

I suggest that Panasonic's apparent preference for f1.7 lenses is something of a sweet spot for M4/3 lenses.

* The Optical formula for the 7Artisans 50/0.95 is cheekily very close to that used in the Canon "Dream Lens" 50/1.0 made originally for RF camera bodies. There is nothing apparently wrong with the build or the optics of the 7A lens that I can see. Maybe the price doesn't suit? However I could never make myself afford a second hand "Dream Lens".

Ian Stuart Forsyth · Jul 28, 2025

MJ_Photo38 said:
JNK 100 said:

HicHic said:

JNK 100 said:

So -if I have a FF 50mm AF f1.4 or faster lens please would someone tell me what the M43 equivalent is please

Click to expand...

25/0.7

Click to expand...

I look forward to it's launch

Click to expand...

You have a kind of similar lens with the Voightländer 29mm f/0.8

Though I'll be honest I don't know what kind of real-world application would need the DoF of a 50mm f/1.4 on FF.

For many it is more about subject isolation than DOF, for some they think that they are the same they are no.

MJ_Photo38 said:
I use a 40m f/2 and 50mm f/1.8 on my Nikon Z6 and I'm constantly closing down because the depth of field is too shallow.

Wanting to have it is something, and there are indeed shots taken at f/1.4 on 50mm lenses that look great. But the same shots could have been made with an f/2, or even f/2.8.

Even with a ƒ1.2 55mm lens there can be enough DOF most of the time I select ƒ 1.2 it is about subject isolation

MJ_Photo38 said:
The OP was mostly about asking if it was impossible to get shallow DoF on a MFT camera : it's not.

The real question is not how to match full frame (you really can't), but how thin you need your DoF to be... and more often than not it's too shallow on full frame, unless you're using a tight aperture lens.

Ian Stuart Forsyth · Jul 28, 2025

Sam Bennett said:
MJ_Photo38 said:

JNK 100 said:

MJ_Photo38 said:

JNK 100 said:

A lot of my shots are taken at f1.4 50mm FF

Click to expand...

That's cool. You probably don't need it to be that wide to have basically the same shot, though.

Click to expand...

Perhaps not but it is certainly nice to have the option.

Click to expand...

Sure ! I'm glad to have the option as well with my own full frame camera when I'm using it.

But I also cannot recall the last time I was using a MFT camera and telling myself "what if I could completely obliterate the back ground here?"

Click to expand...

Whether you're "completely obliterating" the background or not at f/1.4 really depends on the composition. For me, I use my FF gear in situations where I'm doing full-body shots (which I would call a form of "environmental portraiture") and I want more background separation to minimize ugly backgrounds.

This is also my goal is for subject isolation, most full body shots with a 50mm lens are usually taken at about 3.5 to 4 meters from the subject this will give you about 0.3m to 0.4m of DOF more than when used at ƒ1.2

Sam Bennett said:
This is a complete unedited shot from the S5 II and the 50/1.8 wide open. At f/1.4, the background would be cleaner and, IMO, "better". And this is where MFT would really suffer and have a more distracting background.

Sam Bennett said:
Personally the added weight and expense of f/1.4 FF lenses isn't worth the benefit. But being able to use f/1.8 primes on FF for this type of work has been the sweet spot balancing price/weight/performance.

For this I like to use some of the oldy goldies one is the 55mm ƒ 1.2 the size and weight is manageable as long as you can put up with MFings

--
The Camera is only a tool, photography is deciding how to use it.
The hardest part about capturing wildlife is not the photographing portion; it’s getting them to sign a model release

mmartel · Jul 28, 2025

My phone.

A Nikon Plena could hardly do any better for subject isolation.

AI fakery is way cheaper and hardly distinguishable.

Remember, always tuck the business end of the scissors safely upwards towards the face.

--
"Gentlemen, it has been a privilege playing with you tonight." - Titanic musician before their final song

James Stirling · Jul 29, 2025

mmartel said:
My phone.

A Nikon Plena could hardly do any better for subject isolation.

AI fakery is way cheaper and hardly distinguishable.

Remember, always tuck the business end of the scissors safely upwards towards the face.

Quite a few glitches in your pseudo Plena

I highlight a few .

The lens blur in ACR with some judicious use can do quite well depending on the scene . I was messing about with some samples from the G100

The original

After a touch of NR a splash of cropping , and a dash of lens blur

output at 18X12" my most used m43 print size. It is definitely a less is more filter

--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

JNK 100 · Jul 29, 2025

mmartel said:
My phone.

A Nikon Plena could hardly do any better for subject isolation.

AI fakery is way cheaper and hardly distinguishable.

Remember, always tuck the business end of the scissors safely upwards towards the face.

This doesn't look real to me.

pipituni · Jul 29, 2025

JNK 100 said:
mmartel said:

My phone.

A Nikon Plena could hardly do any better for subject isolation.

AI fakery is way cheaper and hardly distinguishable.

Remember, always tuck the business end of the scissors safely upwards towards the face.

Click to expand...

This doesn't look real to me.

just looks like a not that great subject detect mask and blur everything else

Sam Bennett · Jul 29, 2025

Ian Stuart Forsyth said:
Sam Bennett said:

MJ_Photo38 said:

JNK 100 said:

MJ_Photo38 said:

JNK 100 said:

A lot of my shots are taken at f1.4 50mm FF

Click to expand...

That's cool. You probably don't need it to be that wide to have basically the same shot, though.

Click to expand...

Perhaps not but it is certainly nice to have the option.

Click to expand...

Sure ! I'm glad to have the option as well with my own full frame camera when I'm using it.

But I also cannot recall the last time I was using a MFT camera and telling myself "what if I could completely obliterate the back ground here?"

Click to expand...

Whether you're "completely obliterating" the background or not at f/1.4 really depends on the composition. For me, I use my FF gear in situations where I'm doing full-body shots (which I would call a form of "environmental portraiture") and I want more background separation to minimize ugly backgrounds.

Click to expand...

This is also my goal is for subject isolation, most full body shots with a 50mm lens are usually taken at about 3.5 to 4 meters from the subject this will give you about 0.3m to 0.4m of DOF more than when used at ƒ1.2

Ian Stuart Forsyth said:

This is a complete unedited shot from the S5 II and the 50/1.8 wide open. At f/1.4, the background would be cleaner and, IMO, "better". And this is where MFT would really suffer and have a more distracting background.

Personally the added weight and expense of f/1.4 FF lenses isn't worth the benefit. But being able to use f/1.8 primes on FF for this type of work has been the sweet spot balancing price/weight/performance.

Click to expand...

For this I like to use some of the oldy goldies one is the 55mm ƒ 1.2 the size and weight is manageable as long as you can put up with MFings

Yeah unfortunately MF is a nonstarter for me since I’m typically documenting fast paced events. Furthermore, I just don’t have the patience for it.

--
Sam Bennett
Instagram: @swiftbennett

mmartel · Jul 29, 2025

James Stirling said:
mmartel said:

My phone.

A Nikon Plena could hardly do any better for subject isolation.

AI fakery is way cheaper and hardly distinguishable.

Remember, always tuck the business end of the scissors safely upwards towards the face.

Click to expand...

Quite a few glitches in your pseudo Plena I highlight a few .

Dear Sir, the honor of my 2022 Motorola Edge Pro "Not-icron" demands that I point out a few of your false positives when it comes to "fokehlicious" artifact identification.

Despite you, sir, squarely hitting the mark in a few obvious places, you also see ghosts, tilt at windmills, and last, but certainly not least, miss the forest while you're picking nits amidst the AI-generated trees, and I shall not hesitate for a second to set the record straight.

First, let us refresh ourselves on the alleged glitches you've highlighted.

James Stirling said:

Now, I shall detail your critique's multitudinous failures below, drawing from a pre-dialed-up-to-11 version of the above for edification purposes.

Etc. etc. etc. Ergo propter hoc. Sic semper stulti. And by the way, will you look at that stunning transformation of humble kitchen cabinet hardware into the most gorgeous, perfect, spectacular bokeh ball you've ever seen?

I could continue on and point out the countless flaws in your own Adobe-hostage-generated counter-example, but I'll choose (for once) not to roll around in the gutter and just take the high ground by saying: My fake Hasselblad fits in my pocket, handles falls from waist height onto concrete (as long as it's in its case), and consumes fewer watts of power per unforgiveable act of photographic chicanery than yours. That being said, that's some mighty fine fake blur you got there!

--
"Gentlemen, it has been a privilege playing with you tonight." - Titanic musician before their final song

mmartel · Jul 29, 2025

JNK 100 said:
mmartel said:

My phone.

A Nikon Plena could hardly do any better for subject isolation.

AI fakery is way cheaper and hardly distinguishable.

Remember, always tuck the business end of the scissors safely upwards towards the face.

Click to expand...

This doesn't look real to me.

I assure you, both the scissors and the human struggling to contain a bout of laughter are very much real.

The real problem with phone fake bokeh is that now, whenever I see extreme blur generated with real large-aperture/longer-focal-range optics (which itself can be considered a bit of clever trickery if your standard for "what is real" is what the human sees with our own wetworks optics), my brain immediately wants to conclude that I'm looking at cheap phone-generated fakery. C'est la vie. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

--
"Gentlemen, it has been a privilege playing with you tonight." - Titanic musician before their final song

mmartel · Jul 29, 2025

pipituni said:
JNK 100 said:

mmartel said:

My phone.

A Nikon Plena could hardly do any better for subject isolation.

AI fakery is way cheaper and hardly distinguishable.

Remember, always tuck the business end of the scissors safely upwards towards the face.

Click to expand...

This doesn't look real to me.

Click to expand...

just looks like a not that great subject detect mask and blur everything else

The subject detect mask was actually pretty good (laughably bad treatment of the top of the hat aside).

But if you're focused on the quality of the masking, I think you've missed the point-y end of the scissors in my post. Sometimes, even "real" shots - even shot with a lowly m43 camera body and humble lens - look like subject detect mask with a lot of blur applied.

GX85 and 14-140. No AI fakery applied whatsoever.

--
"Gentlemen, it has been a privilege playing with you tonight." - Titanic musician before their final song

M4/3 for portraits -- DOF not shallow?

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Community Leader

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Attachments

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts