OMD: Can I take the same pictures with the 12mm f2.0 and the 17mm f1.8 ?

richarddd wrote:

tedolf wrote:

that I have read on this board others suggesting that if you take that cropped image and blow it back up to 8 x10" through some sort of majic the DOF changes as well.

I don't believe it but some here do.

Tedolph

The argument is that DOF is measured by circle of confusion. When you blow your picture up to 8x10, magically all the small circles of confusion become larger circles confusion, which mean a change in DOF.

I just don't buy it based on my experience using film slide projectors with zoom lenses.

Zooming the picture on the screen did not suddenly make things jump into and out of focus!

Tedolph

dustpuppy wrote:

Hi Everyone,

thank you so much for your feedback. I'm new to photography on high-end cameras, but i've been taking digital pictures with point and shoot cameras since 1999. The last point and shoot camera i've owned is the Canon S100, and after that I decided I wanted a camera with a faster autofocus, less shutter lag and better night-time pictures.

Here are some examples of pictures I took with the OM-D (with the panasonic 20mm f1.7 lens)

The above two pictures are fine, they are taken with the OM-D and the 20mm/f1.7. The one below though, is blurry, I think because the panasonic 20mm took a while to focus.

Besides the focus speed, I like the quality of images with the panasonic 20mm. I'm trying to figure out whether the olympus 17mm f1.8 will give me the same quality of image, but with faster autofocus, especially in low-light conditions.

the first one in particular shows the problems of using a short focal length lens to take a head and shoulders portrait. The poor girl's face is clearly distorted (bowed out) especially her nose and teeth making her much less attractive than she really is. You need at least a 40mm-50mm lens (on a 4/3 sensor) to take a photo like that unless you are very careful about how you position the model's face.

The second shot has the same problem, but not to the same degree because you are not as close. You might have been able to get away using a 25mm lens on u 4/3 but a 30mm lens would be better. Also, you are shooting down on her which causes other problems.

The third shot probably has some subject motion blur due to your 1/60 shutter speed and how close the model is to the camera. It also looks like the camera chose something in the background (the three eye alien?) to focus on. You appearently have not fixed the focus box in the center of the screen so that you choose the point of focus for the camera.

These pictures are proof that you are way in over your head with $2000.00+ worth of photo equipment that you do not know how to operate, as well as some problems with composition for portrait work. You would be better off starting with a much simpler camera (Panny GF-3/5? ) and a kit lens, taking a photography course and reading a bacis photography book about interchangeable lens cameras. The "Kodak Guide to 35mm Photography" was previously suggested.

Please don't make any more pretty women look so bad-it is painful!

Tedolph

I agree with Tedolf that the distortion in the first image is unpleasant. Notice how small her arm looks in comparison with her face. It may be difficult to compose with cropping in mind.

I suggest to try the Digital Teleconverter feature for portraits like that - it will zoom in 2x and force you to stand back and lessen the distortion. The option is in Menu-> Shooting Menu 1, bottom of the list. Pressing the Up button to get to the bottom in one shot will save you time.

Using 17mm with 2x magnification will put you roughly to the lower end of the head-and-shoulder range, but it will be much more difficult to achieve blurry background than with your 20 mm lens. If you have the opportunity, try it before you buy.

Vlad

dustpuppy wrote:

Here are some examples of pictures I took with the OM-D (with the panasonic 20mm f1.7 lens)

I disagree with Tedolf though that you need to change the camera. You would be facing exactly same issues, and you will probably want to upgrade sooner, wasting your money. I think at this stage it would be better for you to search for portraits in this micro 4/3 forum, think which ones you like, and take a note at posing, angle of view, background, and lighting. Then ask questions about doing it with your equipment, and don't get discouraged if you come across an obstacle.

Vlad

Vlad S wrote:

I agree with Tedolf that the distortion in the first image is unpleasant. Notice how small her arm looks in comparison with her face. It may be difficult to compose with cropping in mind.

I suggest to try the Digital Teleconverter feature for portraits like that - it will zoom in 2x and force you to stand back and lessen the distortion. The option is in Menu-> Shooting Menu 1, bottom of the list. Pressing the Up button to get to the bottom in one shot will save you time.

Using 17mm with 2x magnification will put you roughly to the lower end of the head-and-shoulder range, but it will be much more difficult to achieve blurry background than with your 20 mm lens. If you have the opportunity, try it before you buy.

Vlad

dustpuppy wrote:

Here are some examples of pictures I took with the OM-D (with the panasonic 20mm f1.7 lens)

Perspective distortion is all about how close you are to the subject.

Period.

The closer you are to the subject, the more perspective distortion you are going to have.

Period.

Everything else falls out of that.

Longer focal lenghts force you to back away from the subject to get all of it in the frame.

More appearent distance compression, less appearent distance expansion.

Shorter focal lengths force you to get closer to the subject to fill the frame.

More appearent distance expansion, less apprearent distance compression.

Period.

So, focal lenght selection has more to do with appearent distance expansion/compression than anything else.

These are the sorts of things you should really understand, along with rules of composition, angle of view, point of view, white balance, exposure, DOF control, etc. etc. before you dump $2000.00 on camera equipment.

Tedolph

Vlad S wrote:

I disagree with Tedolf though that you need to change the camera. You would be facing exactly same issues, and you will probably want to upgrade sooner, wasting your money. I think at this stage it would be better for you to search for portraits in this micro 4/3 forum, think which ones you like, and take a note at posing, angle of view, background, and lighting. Then ask questions about doing it with your equipment, and don't get discouraged if you come across an obstacle.

Vlad

with Tedolph.

At this point the OP migh not gain much by swithiching to a simpler camera.

Perhaps Tedolph was trying to make a point about investing more resources in training and knowlege than equipment, especiallly for beginners or self taught photographers.

I think he also may have been trying to chastize the OP for consumer hubris.

Hard to say.

Tedolph

tedolf wrote:

richarddd wrote:

tedolf wrote:

that I have read on this board others suggesting that if you take that cropped image and blow it back up to 8 x10" through some sort of majic the DOF changes as well.

I don't believe it but some here do.

Tedolph

The argument is that DOF is measured by circle of confusion. When you blow your picture up to 8x10, magically all the small circles of confusion become larger circles confusion, which mean a change in DOF.

I just don't buy it based on my experience using film slide projectors with zoom lenses.

Zooming the picture on the screen did not suddenly make things jump into and out of focus!

Tedolph

Ha - interesting.  I seem to recall threads around this.  Anyway, if it was true, than wouldn't the converse would have to be true?  Shrinking the image down would expand the DOF, and in theory image that are shrunk to microscopic levels would start to have infite depth of field, despite being shot with something like a 50mm 1.4

dustpuppy wrote:

I like taking a lot of portraits and shots of people, and lots of candid shots. Would those two lenses basically be equivalent for me, with the 12mm being a wider angle ? So I could crop my shots and end up with the same thing ? Or is the 17mm more adequate for taking shots of people / portraits ?

With Caveat.

You can use a 12mm lens, a larger aperture and then and crop the result provided that you crop it enough so that you won't need to walk closer to your subject in order for it to fill the frame.

Because otherwise perspective will change and your subject is not going to like the distortion.

Also, while you can in theory get an identical composition (DOF, FOV, perspective, subject filling frame), as someone has said since the resolution changes, you won't get the same image.

Laszlo13 wrote:

tedolf wrote:

richarddd wrote:

tedolf wrote:

that I have read on this board others suggesting that if you take that cropped image and blow it back up to 8 x10" through some sort of majic the DOF changes as well.

I don't believe it but some here do.

Tedolph

The argument is that DOF is measured by circle of confusion. When you blow your picture up to 8x10, magically all the small circles of confusion become larger circles confusion, which mean a change in DOF.

I just don't buy it based on my experience using film slide projectors with zoom lenses.

Zooming the picture on the screen did not suddenly make things jump into and out of focus!

Tedolph

Ha - interesting. I seem to recall threads around this. Anyway, if it was true, than wouldn't the converse would have to be true? Shrinking the image down would expand the DOF, and in theory image that are shrunk to microscopic levels would start to have infite depth of field, despite being shot with something like a 50mm 1.4

that is why the argument is non-sense.

Tedolph

dustpuppy wrote:

Tihs means I need gear that focuses very fast, which is why i'm looking into the olympus lenses.

The 20mm is probably the slowest focusing lens in all of micro 4/3 line-up. I've seen turtles run faster. Other panasonic lenses focus very fast, including the kit Lumix 14-45 or 14-42 zooms, and of course the 25mm prime. So the brand alone should not be a deterrent, and considering Panasonic lenses may increase the number of possibilities. Just check the reviews if something catches your eye.

I am sorry to say that choosing a different focusing mode will not make the 20mm lens faster. The processing is done in camera, and even 3rd generation Olympus cameras were very fast in all modes, as long as the lens was quick enough.

I think that as a low light lens the 20mm is really handicapped by its slow mechanism. It's focal length, low light capability, and image quality could make it a great party lens, but it's glacial speed of operation makes it more of a party pooper. It really requires a more deliberate style of shooting.

dustpuppy wrote:

Hi,

I appreciate your advice about the distortion in the pictures, i'll pay attention to this kind of thing. However my main objective for now is to take in-focus pictures with my shooting style. Tihs means I need gear that focuses very fast, which is why i'm looking into the olympus lenses. The third picture I posted was using the center focus area, but either the lens or the camera focused too slowly and as result the shot was ruined.

If they are in focus if they are bad photo's?

What could you use photo # 1 for?

It is horrible and can't be shown publically.

Job No. 1 is to learn composition.

Modern cameras make exposure, focus, etc. virtually automatic if you know how to set up the camera. For expample, if you had "Face detection" activated, the third photo would have had the subject in focus as it tries to pick out the closest face to focus on. It wouldn't have fixed the problem with the 1/60 shutter speed which made the shot blurry as well, or the composition problems. You can't "buy" your way into being a good photographer with equipment. You need knowlege. The good news is that you don't need a lot, and it is easy to get by taking a class, etc.

But if you are going to try to get that knowlege by trial and error it is going to take you years. In the mean time you are really going to produce a lot of awful photo's that you may never get the chance to shoot agian.

As I said, for the kind of pictures I take, I have about a 1-second window, and I need my camera to focus extremely fast and take the shot right away.

I don't think buying the E-M5 was a waste of money, as I recognize it's an expensive toy for me, I have no need to take pictures, I just enjoy playing with it.

Then do your subjects a favor-

just take pictures of inanimate objects........or pets!

Tedolph