Tack sharp, don't buy it for bokeh

I find the bokeh to be pretty good.  My only criticism is that it is a bit heavy so I prefer to use the Panaleica 25mm f1.4.  OTOH, the 17mm f1.2 is my go to lens if I have serious work.

The reason why I use a m43 sensor camera for my work is the OOF transition as it is a lot more subtle than on a FF sensor. Most of the work I do is about telling a story about fauna so I shoot from semi macro to wide hence the 12-45 is ideal.

As for the 17mm it is heavy and quite large so it is a lot more practical to use the panaleica 25mm f1.4 as in order to get those other images. There is a lot of hiking and scrambling over rocks, fighting dense undergrowth involved in getting the photos, plus I am no longer a spring chicken and march hares have small pockets.

OOF transition is probably my most used tool in telling a story

march hare wrote:

The reason why I use a m43 sensor camera for my work is the OOF transition as it is a lot more subtle than on a FF sensor. Most of the work I do is about telling a story about fauna so I shoot from semi macro to wide hence the 12-45 is ideal.

As for the 17mm it is heavy and quite large so it is a lot more practical to use the panaleica 25mm f1.4 as in order to get those other images. There is a lot of hiking and scrambling over rocks, fighting dense undergrowth involved in getting the photos, plus I am no longer a spring chicken and march hares have small pockets.

OOF transition is probably my most used tool in telling a story

I am curious about your comment regarding OOF transition. I was always under the impression, without having proof for it, that a "FF" sensor should have an advantage in this respect in parallel with its inherently better dof control? To take the argument further I always found, when looking at images taken with MF or LF sensor cameras, that what stands out is exactly superior OOF transition.

Can you post one of your images that shows good OOF transition?

photofan1986 wrote:

Well, I'd reformulate : don't buy it for shallow depth of field. Because as far as bokeh goes (the quality of out of focus background), it seems very good.

You're absolutely right.

kkkk wrote:

march hare wrote:

The reason why I use a m43 sensor camera for my work is the OOF transition as it is a lot more subtle than on a FF sensor. Most of the work I do is about telling a story about fauna so I shoot from semi macro to wide hence the 12-45 is ideal.

As for the 17mm it is heavy and quite large so it is a lot more practical to use the panaleica 25mm f1.4 as in order to get those other images. There is a lot of hiking and scrambling over rocks, fighting dense undergrowth involved in getting the photos, plus I am no longer a spring chicken and march hares have small pockets.

OOF transition is probably my most used tool in telling a story

I am curious about your comment regarding OOF transition. I was always under the impression, without having proof for it, that a "FF" sensor should have an advantage in this respect in parallel with its inherently better dof control? To take the argument further I always found, when looking at images taken with MF or LF sensor cameras, that what stands out is exactly superior OOF transition.

Can you post one of your images that shows good OOF transition?

It's not about producing a single image but a series of images I don't chase complete isolation

eg a gum nut on relation to a juvenile leaf, a mature leaf, new stem growth etc etc. I will shoot within the same space with  about a dozen different focus points using f4 and f8 along with 30mm, 55mm and 70mm focal lengths depending on the distance between each point  needed to be emphasized

It is a process that ends up with about 5 to 10 images that are viewed as one it's a system  works for what I need to do.

I used to use a Fuji  but there was too much DOF in some transitions it never worked with FF. Since I got the Oly  12-45 it is a breeze  it seems like it was tailor made just for me;-)

No images to show as they are not mine to show as they are owned various universities I work for  my other stuff is very different mainly film

march hare wrote:

kkkk wrote:

march hare wrote:

The reason why I use a m43 sensor camera for my work is the OOF transition as it is a lot more subtle than on a FF sensor. Most of the work I do is about telling a story about fauna so I shoot from semi macro to wide hence the 12-45 is ideal.

As for the 17mm it is heavy and quite large so it is a lot more practical to use the panaleica 25mm f1.4 as in order to get those other images. There is a lot of hiking and scrambling over rocks, fighting dense undergrowth involved in getting the photos, plus I am no longer a spring chicken and march hares have small pockets.

OOF transition is probably my most used tool in telling a story

I am curious about your comment regarding OOF transition. I was always under the impression, without having proof for it, that a "FF" sensor should have an advantage in this respect in parallel with its inherently better dof control? To take the argument further I always found, when looking at images taken with MF or LF sensor cameras, that what stands out is exactly superior OOF transition.

Can you post one of your images that shows good OOF transition?

It's not about producing a single image but a series of images I don't chase complete isolation

eg a gum nut on relation to a juvenile leaf, a mature leaf, new stem growth etc etc. I will shoot within the same space with about a dozen different focus points using f4 and f8 along with 30mm, 55mm and 70mm focal lengths depending on the distance between each point needed to be emphasized

It is a process that ends up with about 5 to 10 images that are viewed as one it's a system works for what I need to do.

I used to use a Fuji but there was too much DOF in some transitions it never worked with FF. Since I got the Oly 12-45 it is a breeze it seems like it was tailor made just for me;-)

No images to show as they are not mine to show as they are owned various universities I work for my other stuff is very different mainly film

I think we are on the same page here. You are looking for deeper dof, which is easier to achieve with a 43 sensor,  whereas I was referring  to the option of shallower dof. With regard to the term transition I wouldn't call it more subtle with a 43 sensor, but I think, just judging from what my eyes see or make me believe, there is just "less" transition. I am not sure though if less is the correct term. For lack of words maybe the transition between in focus and out of focus areas is less spaced out with 43 sensors as compared to larger sensors when shooting with an equivalent AOV lens?

It's all about information about objects in correlation not DOF as a aesthetic

In 'Bokeh', quality is a component, as well as, quantity.

In both quality and practicality, f/1.2 is a fantastic setting on this lens.

In the m4/3 format, I enjoy both process and results, of shooting with fast, wide open apertures.

Rgds,

Jan

bluevellet wrote:

Like the title says.

I like the 35mm equivalent focal lenght (though I slightly prefer 24mm over it). I've long looked for some workhorse, general prime on m43, one super bright, super sharp, with AF and if possible, weather sealed.

On Nikon, I've been using a Sigma 35mm F1.4 Art. First for many years on an old D600 and now on a Z6. My favorite lens on F/Z mount.

Lately, I've been forcing myself to stop that Sigma lens down to F2.5, to micmic the DoF control of the Olympus 17mm lens but also degrade image quality (in less than ideal light) to be closer to what I would get on a m43 (so, say I was shooting at ISO 4000 on a Nikon, I would be around ISO 1000 on m43 with the two stop advantage of f1.2).

Though I do think the Olympus would let me get a bit closer to subjects.

You are doublecounting the advantages of FF.

At the same DoF and SS, there is no shot noise advantage for FF. Your second step makes no sense.