About that Bokeh (Another FF/m43 comparison)

Me too!  Should we skip the 645 (6 x 4.5cm)?

Testing a new Oly 75mm wide open on E-PL5 from around 15 feet away (cropped).

I understand the technical objective of the OP and looking at the light bulb comparison, the D810 does have more blur but that wouldn't be my choice anyway. Being very personal, choices can be manipulated enough to make this a very trivial issue. More megapixels, more blur… it's all trivial now. I still have my Rollei TLR and it hardly gives me any more blur than my Oly 25mm f1.8 in a similar scenario. Reluctantly, I have to say that my E-PL5 can do even more on the street. It has more stealth than my O-MD or TLR but I don't mean to go off onto another debate, this is about DOF blur and I'd like to offer another consideration when choosing blur softness.

I prefer adding more information to the composition by relating background effects to the well pronounced subject, in order to build the story, having the background inject more information and elaborate on the subject. Again, it's a personal choice but I've seen a lot of nice detail shots weakened by too much background blur. I'd say the photo as an entirety matters more than anything, especially in the first few moments of seeing it on a wall, the initial impact or impression one may get before more detail evaluation. This is where 5 megapixels can outplay the advantages of 16 or more megapixels and I can be numb to numbers or formats.

Another consideration is that the OP test shot appears as a single background plane. I've always found more appeal with compounding amounts of blur, as a background recedes… usually more interesting. This alone may nullify any suggestion that one needs a larger format, or longer or faster lens to get softer blur effects. Focus and light falloff are great ingredients to master.

This shot, in NYC, has enough information in the background blur to indicate a city location, that she was probably sitting in relation to standing figures in the back. The circles in the blur accentuate the same in her eyes or what she's wearing. If I'd taken this same shot with extensive blur I'd have marred this opportunity. I may as well have shown you something that was taken in front of a bright mottled canvas backdrop in the studio… or wherever.

The best response yet.

BruceB609 wrote:

This shot, in NYC, has enough information in the background blur to indicate a city location, that she was probably sitting in relation to standing figures in the back. The circles in the blur accentuate the same in her eyes or what she's wearing. If I'd taken this same shot with extensive blur I'd have marred this opportunity. I may as well have shown you something that was taken in front of a bright mottled canvas backdrop in the studio… or wherever.

Nice portrait Bruce. Very natural and sharp from little fingers to her ears. No unseemly distortion either. And In this case the light and shapes in the back give a sense of place and match the leisurely quality of her pose. So you actually achieve the holy bokeh effect of interesting background without slighting the foreground where I placed my first attention. A good nay great example Bruce of making the smalish sensor format work for you. Bravo. Nice work...gs

Got to add that bokeh discussions take on a theological nature, rather than a here' s how nature.  What you managed takes experience.  Not more not less...no magic formula. No theological Grace so to  speak.....Linhof Technikardan or EPL 5 it is the M.O. that counts we suggest.

Michael Jardine wrote:

Tony8232 wrote:

I think a comparison to APSC is more relevant since they must out sell FF by a huge margin.

I did a three-camera comparison early last year before I sold my APS-C camera:

http://www.qamera.com/2014/02/12/3-cameras-3-lenses/

Great job! This is exactly the comparison we need. It may be more interesting if you add the information of three distances for these same composition shots.

BruceB609 wrote:

This shot, in NYC, has enough information in the background blur to indicate a city location, that she was probably sitting in relation to standing figures in the back. The circles in the blur accentuate the same in her eyes or what she's wearing. If I'd taken this same shot with extensive blur I'd have marred this opportunity. I may as well have shown you something that was taken in front of a bright mottled canvas backdrop in the studio… or wherever.

Thanks for the positive feedbacks but I'll be quite honest about this shot, it was just an opportunity to test the new Oly 75mm I'd purchased. I wanted to see what advantage there was to distancing the camera from a subject and still getting portrait qualities. With other primes, I'd have to be much closer for this kind of blur. I shot quite a number of people and very few even noticed me. As for the blur strategy here, well this wasn't staged. With people on the street, speed and number of frames lend to better frame selections later rather than trying to get it all in just one or two well thought out shots, an odds thing with me. The other thing to consider is that if the angle I shot had had been slightly different, the highlight circles could have appeared different. I just get enough shots to raise odds of getting some payoff.

Unrelated to the blur subject, the lighting on her is characteristic of many Manhattan streets in sunlight reflections. It comes off all the glass that tower over typical locations like this. It's the same principle of reflectors in the studio because direct sunlight on her would probably be too high in contrasts. A welcome convenience in the city.

I was going to say, I use the 75mm quite a lot but when I look back, most of the shots I "like" end up being landscapes or street candids. Probably because, as you say it puts you at a greater distance.

https://qamera.smugmug.com/Gear/Lenses/Olympus-75mm-f18/

The only thing that seemed off about your wonderful photo - and it's purely personal - is the angle of the photo. It appears as if you are looking down. I try to get at eye level with the person I'm shooting. But I say that just because it's the only criticism I can think of.  

These pictures, taken with the 75mm f/1.8, combine shallow DOF with 'enough background information' to tell give you context...

Fotoloco wrote:

Last three perfectly done re balance of blur and context. It is true that you can get more blur with FF if you select the right lens, but not often needed. In fact, most times, the only time I really really want to knock the background out beyond what is doable with u4/3 is when client insists on a location that is just horrible for desired results.

For portraits and people, I agree.  It's always easy to find a wall

I always acepted the fact that FF and APSC have more background blur compared to micro four thirds or 1 inch sensors or Point and shoots.
However the bokeh I am getting on some of my lenses are good enough for me
As long as most of my subject is in focus and clear, and the background is creamed.