M4/3 for portraits -- DOF not shallow?

A chain is also a term of distance based on something entirely different.

In 1620, the polymath Edmund Gunter developed a method of accurately surveying land using a surveyor's chain 66 feet long with 100 links. The 66-foot unit, which was four perches or rods, took on the name the chain.
That's not what I was told by Jamaicans, twice independently. Coincidence? The length though, seems similar.
I don't know anything about Jamaica but learnt surveying in the imperial days. The surveyor's "tape measure" is called a "chain" because it was a chain long, 10 chains to a furlong and 8 furlongs to a mile. It was not a traditional chain with links but a thin steel strip rolled up. Each time a measurement was taken, ambient temperature had to be measured and temperature corrections made for expansion or contraction of the chain. Corrections were also made for the slope of the ground. Measuring out distances was called chaining (probably still is) and the surveyor's assistant was called the "chainman" because they held the other end on the chain.

Coincidentally, one chain is 20.1168m. That was convenient for when we converted to metric and needed to eye in distances. You eyed in chains and multiplied by 20 to get it in metres. Incidentally, a seasoned surveyor could pace out a chain reasonably accurately by taking 20 paces of just the right amount of stretch.

Again, I say I know nothing about Jamaica but I suspect that the chain they refer to, is the imperial 66' and that the notion of it being the length of a chain used for slaves in a cute urban myth. However, a normal surveyors chain of the day, of which there would have been a few around, may have proved to be a convenient tool for transporting slaves.
 
"Light travels at 2.13085531 × 10^14 smoots per fortnight."

That much I know for sure. I lived in Central Sq., Cambridge for 20 years and my best friend at the corner of Comm ave & Mass ave. in Boston. :-)
 
Last edited:
Okay, so, as DrHook59 (sans Medicine Show?) pointed out, the official unit of measurement for "chain" is based on a surveyor's "chain", yet also believed by more than one person in Jamaica to refer to the length of a chain formerly used to transport groups of slaves but that misunderstanding neither undermines nor bolsters my point that being a benchmark signifies nothing special.
You may have misunderstood my intent - it was not to say you were wrong, just that there were two measurements in the offing. And to be blunt, I suspect both units of measurement are historically related, too. Sigh.
I wasn't offended, just sorry to see my point going astray :-( :-( :-(
 
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.
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.
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.
I've always thought Oly's continuous reference to "35mm equivalence" to be counter productive to promoting the m4/3 format. I would have thought that anyone venturing into camera photography that comprehends the term "35mm equivalence", would be fully familiar with the so called "crop factor" issue.
 
A chain is also a term of distance based on something entirely different.

In 1620, the polymath Edmund Gunter developed a method of accurately surveying land using a surveyor's chain 66 feet long with 100 links. The 66-foot unit, which was four perches or rods, took on the name the chain.
That's not what I was told by Jamaicans, twice independently. Coincidence? The length though, seems similar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_(unit)

A
Okay, so, as DrHook59 (sans Medicine Show?) pointed out, the official unit of measurement for "chain" is based on a surveyor's "chain", yet also believed by more than one person in Jamaica to refer to the length of a chain formerly used to transport groups of slaves but that misunderstanding neither undermines nor bolsters my point that being a benchmark signifies nothing special.
Of course both could be true, which would support your original point.

A
 
Shot with an OM-3 and a water damaged 45/1.8 at f1.8 over a pizza and a beer in the in an outdoor Italian restaurant on a balmy summer's evening. I don't think there's an issue with DOF there.

OM-3, Oly 45mm f1.8
OM-3, Oly 45mm f1.8
This is a mid-telephoto lens close up, so of course the background will be shallow.
The OP is talking about portraits, it's in the title. In FF, around 85mm is traditionally the favoured FL for portraits.
Don't worry , I think he's one of those regular posters that likes to tell you how mediocre M43 is.

There are at least three of them on here to my knowledge.
 
A chain is also a term of distance based on something entirely different.

In 1620, the polymath Edmund Gunter developed a method of accurately surveying land using a surveyor's chain 66 feet long with 100 links. The 66-foot unit, which was four perches or rods, took on the name the chain.
That's not what I was told by Jamaicans, twice independently. Coincidence? The length though, seems similar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_(unit)

A
Okay, so, as DrHook59 (sans Medicine Show?) pointed out, the official unit of measurement for "chain" is based on a surveyor's "chain", yet also believed by more than one person in Jamaica to refer to the length of a chain formerly used to transport groups of slaves but that misunderstanding neither undermines nor bolsters my point that being a benchmark signifies nothing special.
Of course both could be true, which would support your original point.

A
The distance of a chain was 66 feet so that it took 40 chains to equal 1/2 mile or 80 chains to make 1 mile if it was based on anything else we would have an odd ball number of chains in a 1/2 mile. Further more it takes 10 chains squared to equal 1 acre so this is why the chain is the size it is. It unit of measurement was to quickly derive a way to use a measuring device to fit the distances needed to measure areas and distances

And yes I still use a chain

--
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
 
Last edited:
Shot with an OM-3 and a water damaged 45/1.8 at f1.8 over a pizza and a beer in the in an outdoor Italian restaurant on a balmy summer's evening. I don't think there's an issue with DOF there.

OM-3, Oly 45mm f1.8
OM-3, Oly 45mm f1.8
This is a mid-telephoto lens close up, so of course the background will be shallow.
The OP is talking about portraits, it's in the title. In FF, around 85mm is traditionally the favoured FL for portraits.
A portrait can be head only, head and shoulders or full-body of course.

; hence my comment.
 
In Jamaica, if you ask a Jamaican how far it is to somewhere, they might reply "ten 'chains'".
I've photographed some m4/3 street portraits this year reckon are trifle off the chain. Just by serendipidity. Shared a handful on here Dpr m4/3 forum as individual threads.

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.
 
Last edited:

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top