Depth of field.

[Sergey_Green]

Having used many different systems in both cinematography and photography, you can achieve just about anything you want with just about any system/format you want if you know how to use the tool.

Many time, I find, people use ultra shallow depth of field to ignore their background (note the word many). Not to say that I want to see every fine detail in my backgrounds, having some semblance of what is in the background is really valuable to me. I find it allows the whole scene to be noticed but still have the subject be the focus.

In the end, there are so many things that affect depth of field. People like to boil it down to the size of the sensor but that is one minor variable. It is more akin to saying eating a lot of bread make you fat. That could be a contributor but there is much more to that equation than the bread.

Angle of view, focal length, distance from the subject, reproduction size, etc. all affect depth of field.

But every single one of these variables is sensor size depended, would not you say? And would not it be then perfectly correct to say that achieving the effect will get harder and harder as the sensor size gets smaller and smaller. Or is it not so?

My advice, learn how to use your tools, don't think in "equivalence", and use the gear that gives you what you want. Let the other photographers talk about it, you go out and do it.

--
-A

--
- sergey

If the format size changes then you have to manipulate one of the variables. I can get shallow DOF on my Panasonic LX5 compact because I understand that DOF decreases as the aperture gets bigger, and it also decreases as I get closer to the subject.

Sure. But getting closer to the subject does also mean you are restrained by framing, which you can only control by giving up on other parameters for it. Full circle and you are back to where you started.

I can also get shallow DoF with my camera phone, sometimes. Can I safely rely on the techniques you describe above for whenever I need it?

I can also get get front to back sharpness on my 5x4 camera because I understand how to manipulate DOF using the Scheimpflug principle and aperture size.

Can be done with full frame setup no less than it can be done with mFT setup for the same focal length and framing. Therefore what?

..
These days most discussion about DOF is about how to achieve shallow DOF and the discussion centres around aperture size. When fast lenses first started to appear they were considered essential not because of the shallow DOF potential but because film speeds were slow.

Spare me the history lesson. Just like the idea of home matches (for creating controlled flame) was discovered from a dried lump on the end of a stick that was used for stirring a mix of chemicals; microwave oven was a result from a radar defence tech military experiment; and potato chips was a result of a pure prank, and not a $7 billion a year enterprise planning. Does the this information make those appliances for our use less important or more important?

..

--
- sergey

 

[Paul Amyes]

Having used many different systems in both cinematography and photography, you can achieve just about anything you want with just about any system/format you want if you know how to use the tool.

Many time, I find, people use ultra shallow depth of field to ignore their background (note the word many). Not to say that I want to see every fine detail in my backgrounds, having some semblance of what is in the background is really valuable to me. I find it allows the whole scene to be noticed but still have the subject be the focus.

In the end, there are so many things that affect depth of field. People like to boil it down to the size of the sensor but that is one minor variable. It is more akin to saying eating a lot of bread make you fat. That could be a contributor but there is much more to that equation than the bread.

Angle of view, focal length, distance from the subject, reproduction size, etc. all affect depth of field.

But every single one of these variables is sensor size depended, would not you say? And would not it be then perfectly correct to say that achieving the effect will get harder and harder as the sensor size gets smaller and smaller. Or is it not so?

My advice, learn how to use your tools, don't think in "equivalence", and use the gear that gives you what you want. Let the other photographers talk about it, you go out and do it.

--
-A

--
- sergey

If the format size changes then you have to manipulate one of the variables. I can get shallow DOF on my Panasonic LX5 compact because I understand that DOF decreases as the aperture gets bigger, and it also decreases as I get closer to the subject.

Sure. But getting closer to the subject does also mean you are restrained by framing, which you can only control by giving up on other parameters for it. Full circle and you are back to where you started.

I can also get shallow DoF with my camera phone, sometimes. Can I safely rely on the techniques you describe above for whenever I need it?

Sure if you understand the principles.

I can also get get front to back sharpness on my 5x4 camera because I understand how to manipulate DOF using the Scheimpflug principle and aperture size.

Can be done with full frame setup no less than it can be done with mFT setup for the same focal length and framing. Therefore what?

Therefore people on these forums complain that you can't get deep DOF as you increase format size, but you can if you understand the physics involved. Oh and please tell me where I can get a full frame camera with full tilt, shift and swing movements.

..

These days most discussion about DOF is about how to achieve shallow DOF and the discussion centres around aperture size. When fast lenses first started to appear they were considered essential not because of the shallow DOF potential but because film speeds were slow.

Spare me the history lesson. Just like the idea of home matches (for creating controlled flame) was discovered from a dried lump on the end of a stick that was used for stirring a mix of chemicals; microwave oven was a result from a radar defence tech military experiment; and potato chips was a result of a pure prank, and not a $7 billion a year enterprise planning. Does the this information make those appliances for our use less important or more important?

From history you can find answers. But if you've closed your mind to the past then you're destined to keep repeating the problem.

..

--
- sergey

--
www.paulamyes.com

http://www.redbubble.com/people/amyesphotograph

 

[Sergey_Green]

Therefore people on these forums complain that you can't get deep DOF as you increase format size, but you can if you understand the physics involved.

There is only so much that you need to stop it down to. Unless your subject is very close, and background is far away. That is not even realistic somehow.

Oh and please tell me where I can get a full frame camera with full tilt, shift and swing movements.

In some scenarios IS can be helpful, but not even in the most that I can think of.

..

These days most discussion about DOF is about how to achieve shallow DOF and the discussion centres around aperture size. When fast lenses first started to appear they were considered essential not because of the shallow DOF potential but because film speeds were slow.

Spare me the history lesson. Just like the idea of home matches (for creating controlled flame) was discovered from a dried lump on the end of a stick that was used for stirring a mix of chemicals; microwave oven was a result from a radar defence tech military experiment; and potato chips was a result of a pure prank, and not a $7 billion a year enterprise planning. Does the this information make those appliances for our use less important or more important?

From history you can find answers.

Sure, here is your answer, Olympus 75 f/1.8, most of the frames are shot in a bright daylight, not closed down, why would think that is?

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=olympus 75 1.8

What answers are you hoping to find, and why are they important?

But if you've closed your mind to the past then you're destined to keep repeating the problem.

Repeating what we have not done, or repeating what you have not found? Which is it?

--
- sergey

 

[Paul Amyes]

Therefore people on these forums complain that you can't get deep DOF as you increase format size, but you can if you understand the physics involved.

There is only so much that you need to stop it down to. Unless your subject is very close, and background is far away. That is not even realistic somehow.

Oh and please tell me where I can get a full frame camera with full tilt, shift and swing movements.

In some scenarios IS can be helpful, but not even in the most that I can think of.

I'm not talking about IS I'm talking about moving the lens plane in relation to the film/sensor plane using upwards movements, tilting movements and swinginging movement to control where on the film or sensor plane the focus point is placed. This is called the Scheimpflug principle, but obviously from your earlier comments you are not interested in history even when it can offer a solution. Try looking it up, you might learn that it is possible to manipulate DOF without using aperture.

..

These days most discussion about DOF is about how to achieve shallow DOF and the discussion centres around aperture size. When fast lenses first started to appear they were considered essential not because of the shallow DOF potential but because film speeds were slow.

Spare me the history lesson. Just like the idea of home matches (for creating controlled flame) was discovered from a dried lump on the end of a stick that was used for stirring a mix of chemicals; microwave oven was a result from a radar defence tech military experiment; and potato chips was a result of a pure prank, and not a $7 billion a year enterprise planning. Does the this information make those appliances for our use less important or more important?

From history you can find answers.

Sure, here is your answer, Olympus 75 f/1.8, most of the frames are shot in a bright daylight, not closed down, why would think that is?

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=olympus 75 1.8

What answers are you hoping to find, and why are they important?

I'm not looking for answers I was offering an answer to your question as to whether DOF was format dependent or not.

But if you've closed your mind to the past then you're destined to keep repeating the problem.

Repeating what we have not done, or repeating what you have not found? Which is it?

Well you're the one with closed mind. But the answer to a lot of people's DOF questions with m4/3 could be answered with a shift lens utilising the Scheimpflug principle. Look it up, educate yourself, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Loading…

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[John King]

Spot on, Paul.

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
.
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --
.
The Camera doth not make the Man (nor Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
.
Galleries: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/

Bird Control Officers on active service.

 

[Louis_Dobson]

Absolutely.

Depth of field is not related to sensor size as such.

Depth of field is defined by the entry pupil, also called the true aperture, of the lens.

Which is in turn the focal length of the lens over the f number.

Which in practice means your MFT lens has around two stops less DoF than an FF lens of the same field of view and same f number. This is only 2/3rds of a stop compared to APS-C though.

The solution is to factor in the cost of a a fast prime when considering two thirds.

A 45 f1.8 is cheap as chips, and behaves like a 90mm f3.6. This doesn't sound too good, but actually it is - it's all most people need, ever.

A 42.5 f1.2 is expensive, and behaves like an 85mm f2.4. This is bad value in my view, and reflects the stupid and misleading Leica badge, and the fact that "f1.2" sounds impressive when in fact, bearing in mind the sensor size, it isn't.

A 45mm f1.0 Oly lens is rumoured. It's not here, it may not exist, price is unknown, and it's a 90mm f2. Even DoF nutters should be fine with this.

Canon's fast lens is an 85mm f1.2, which would be a 42.5mm f0.6. That's not going to happen, and in my view it's not useful either. If you really want that, go FF.

Is there anyone who switched from m43 to aps-c or fullframe for the shallower depth of field? I'm still unsure if I will go m43 for the portability or should go aps-c or fullframe for the shallower depth of field. I love portraits with that shallow depth of field that fullframe can give me. But for all the other subject I don't need that shallow depth of field. Only if I want to go creative with dof.

First of all, I think this debate over whether you need shallow DOF is silly. I would never rule out the idea of using shallow DOF on some sort of principle. When I hear someone say "shallow DOF is overrated" what I hear is "those grapes were probably sour anyway".

The plain and simple truth of it is that sometimes it's nice to be able to choose shallow DOF for your shot and sometimes not so much. There are times when I'm unable to move far enough away from the subject to use a longer lens and don't have the luxury of being able to change my position enough to move some annoying item in background completely out of the field of view or the light isn't cooperating to isolate the subject. So I value being able to use depth of field as a tool when the situation arises.

One of the reasons I bought into the M43 system was because of the availability of the f/0.95 Voigtlander lenses. They give me that flexibility when I want it. Ultimately, it's not the size of the sensor that's the biggest limitation in DOF control but rather the lens you place in front of it. The Voigtlander lenses get you a lot of the DOF flexibility you see with lenses commonly used on the larger sensors, and on the longer end there are some pretty fast native lenses as well. I've found that those options keep me quite satisfied with the M43 format.

 

[Louis_Dobson]

Having used many different systems in both cinematography and photography, you can achieve just about anything you want with just about any system/format you want if you know how to use the tool.

Many time, I find, people use ultra shallow depth of field to ignore their background (note the word many). Not to say that I want to see every fine detail in my backgrounds, having some semblance of what is in the background is really valuable to me. I find it allows the whole scene to be noticed but still have the subject be the focus.

In the end, there are so many things that affect depth of field. People like to boil it down to the size of the sensor but that is one minor variable. It is more akin to saying eating a lot of bread make you fat. That could be a contributor but there is much more to that equation than the bread.

What affects the depth of field is the entry pupil, AKA the true aperture, of the lens. The sensor size has nothing to do with it directly, only in so far as very big entry pupils are hard to design for small sensors (although 30mm is easy enough, and that's a very shallow lens), and in marketing terms, since (for example) pro zooms tend to be f2.8, which is fast on FF, and not fast on MFT cameras.

Angle of view, focal length, distance from the subject, reproduction size, etc. all affect depth of field.

My advice, learn how to use your tools, don't think in "equivalence", and use the gear that gives you what you want. Let the other photographers talk about it, you go out and do it.

I see you run MFT and FF, as did I for many years. I find equivalence very handy to think in. For example a landscape with a mild wide angle on FF normally means f11, on MFT, half, f5.6. A shallow portrait on MFT with a mild tele, f2.8, on FF, f5.6. Etc etc.

Still, each to their own.

--
-A

--
www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

 

[Sergey_Green]

Therefore people on these forums complain that you can't get deep DOF as you increase format size, but you can if you understand the physics involved.

There is only so much that you need to stop it down to. Unless your subject is very close, and background is far away. That is not even realistic somehow.

Oh and please tell me where I can get a full frame camera with full tilt, shift and swing movements.

In some scenarios IS can be helpful, but not even in the most that I can think of.

I'm not talking about IS I'm talking about moving the lens plane in relation to the film/sensor plane using upwards movements, tilting movements and swinginging movement to control where on the film or sensor plane the focus point is placed. This is called the Scheimpflug principle, but obviously from your earlier comments you are not interested in history even when it can offer a solution. Try looking it up, you might learn that it is possible to manipulate DOF without using aperture.

I misunderstood what you were saying, thought there was a hint to IS.

..

These days most discussion about DOF is about how to achieve shallow DOF and the discussion centres around aperture size. When fast lenses first started to appear they were considered essential not because of the shallow DOF potential but because film speeds were slow.

Spare me the history lesson. Just like the idea of home matches (for creating controlled flame) was discovered from a dried lump on the end of a stick that was used for stirring a mix of chemicals; microwave oven was a result from a radar defence tech military experiment; and potato chips was a result of a pure prank, and not a $7 billion a year enterprise planning. Does the this information make those appliances for our use less important or more important?

From history you can find answers.

Sure, here is your answer, Olympus 75 f/1.8, most of the frames are shot in a bright daylight, not closed down, why would think that is?

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=olympus 75 1.8

What answers are you hoping to find, and why are they important?

I'm not looking for answers I was offering an answer to your question as to whether DOF was format dependent or not.

You started giving the history lesson of why fast lenses came into existence. I merely pointed out how irrelevant to the discussion that story is.

But if you've closed your mind to the past then you're destined to keep repeating the problem.

Repeating what we have not done, or repeating what you have not found? Which is it?

Well you're the one with closed mind. But the answer to a lot of people's DOF questions with m4/3 could be answered with a shift lens utilising the Scheimpflug principle. Look it up, educate yourself, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

As I said earlier, I did not catch you had the shift lens in mind, and not IS.

--
- sergey

 

[Englishman in France]

They should be able to use of their sensor shift technology to do this. Especially when cheap mobile phones can do this, albeit by manually shifting the phone.

 

[s_grins]

They should be able to use of their sensor shift technology to do this. Especially when cheap mobile phones can do this, albeit by manually shifting the phone.

WOW! I did not know that shallow DOF can be achieved via hardware tweaks. Thank you for pointing on that

 

[Sean Nelson]

There are times when I'm unable to move far enough away from the subject to use a longer lens and don't have the luxury of being able to change my position enough to move some annoying item in background completely out of the field of view or the light isn't cooperating to isolate the subject. So I value being able to use depth of field as a tool when the situation arises.

One of the reasons I bought into the M43 system was because of the availability of the f/0.95 Voigtlander lenses.

A 45 f1.8 is cheap as chips, and behaves like a 90mm f3.6. This doesn't sound too good, but actually it is - it's all most people need, ever.
A 42.5 f1.2 is expensive, and behaves like an 85mm f2.4. This is bad value in my view, and reflects the stupid and misleading Leica badge, and the fact that "f1.2" sounds impressive when in fact, bearing in mind the sensor size, it isn't.

A 45mm f1.0 Oly lens is rumoured. It's not here, it may not exist, price is unknown, and it's a 90mm f2. Even DoF nutters should be fine with this.

Those are all medium telephoto lenses. Getting shallow DOF on M43 with longer lenses has never really been an issue, the challenge comes when you get into the "normal" and "wide" range. That's important when you simply don't have the physical space available to get far enough away from your subject. Hence my comment about the Voigtlander lenses.

Now I know you're not a fan of wide shots with shallow DOF, but for some of us it can be a useful capability. M43 can't do it to the same degree as an FF camera with the kind of lenses that are usually available for that format, but I've found that the Voigtlanders do it well enough for me.

 

[neil holmes]

Therefore people on these forums complain that you can't get deep DOF as you increase format size, but you can if you understand the physics involved. Oh and please tell me where I can get a full frame camera with full tilt, shift and swing movements.

Here.

Actus Mini View Cameras

www.cambo.com

 

[Louis_Dobson]

It's not that I'm "not a fan of", it's just that I rarely see it done. In general people either pull the subject out by perspective (ie wide angle) or through shallow DoF. Someone posted a lovely boxing preparation shot the other day which used both, but my observation is a) almost nobody does that b) it would actually have been a better shot, deeper.

You regularly shoot 24mm f1.4, fine, no problem, get FF.

The rest of you, show me your personal shots. I mean yours, personally, not a trawl of a photo database.

99% of you, you don't, do you?

I was looking through my own stuff, and I hadn't noticed, but actually I'm pretty DoF based. But I have no trouble doing it with MFT. Just not with a cheap zoom, I snap on a prime. Nor with a WA, it's not normally a good look.

There are times when I'm unable to move far enough away from the subject to use a longer lens and don't have the luxury of being able to change my position enough to move some annoying item in background completely out of the field of view or the light isn't cooperating to isolate the subject. So I value being able to use depth of field as a tool when the situation arises.

One of the reasons I bought into the M43 system was because of the availability of the f/0.95 Voigtlander lenses.

A 45 f1.8 is cheap as chips, and behaves like a 90mm f3.6. This doesn't sound too good, but actually it is - it's all most people need, ever.

A 42.5 f1.2 is expensive, and behaves like an 85mm f2.4. This is bad value in my view, and reflects the stupid and misleading Leica badge, and the fact that "f1.2" sounds impressive when in fact, bearing in mind the sensor size, it isn't.

A 45mm f1.0 Oly lens is rumoured. It's not here, it may not exist, price is unknown, and it's a 90mm f2. Even DoF nutters should be fine with this.

Those are all medium telephoto lenses. Getting shallow DOF on M43 with longer lenses has never really been an issue, the challenge comes when you get into the "normal" and "wide" range. That's important when you simply don't have the physical space available to get far enough away from your subject. Hence my comment about the Voigtlander lenses.

Now I know you're not a fan of wide shots with shallow DOF, but for some of us it can be a useful capability. M43 can't do it to the same degree as an FF camera with the kind of lenses that are usually available for that format, but I've found that the Voigtlanders do it well enough for me.

 

[Louis_Dobson]

Coming back late, I've always been a great fan of your "look" (and the eye behind it), I love all those shots.

But firstly most people, including me, have a different look, and secondly you would get more or less the same result with Panny's 42.5 f1.2.

It's the 85 f1.2 MFT can't live with.

You want "special effects" shallow, buy special effects kit - ie a 35mm dSLR with an f1.4 or f1.2 80 to 120mm lens.

By the way, what happens when you lose your model? Your daughter must be nearly a teenager by now, and my partner has gone from being delighted to pose, to isolated body parts only, to "Get that thing away from me" (we are both past 50 these days).

It's still life and dogs from here on in for me, sadly Even my friends' children have kids of their own now, and the link is too tenuous to take them out as models - too many weirdos about. I have no intention of explaining to a policeman why I am on a beach with a half dressed eight year old at dawn. I'll shoot the rocks (at f5.6).

I used to use a Nikon D3 (full frame) and 105mm f2 for portraits and body shots. That's DoF shallow enough for almost anyone, and 99% of the time you stop down.

.

.

.

And if you want special effects DoF then you need to go FF and have a very deep pocket when you get there.

I dunno, Louis -- a 6D + 100 / 2 ain't all that large, heavy, or expensive, and it can do tricks like:

And, of course, not always for portraits:

So, there are a few examples for a visual context of what photos look like that 1% of the time you aren't stopping down from f/2 at 100mm on FF. ;-)

--
www.flickr.com/photos/acam

The Gentleman Snapper

Blog of Louis Dobson, Algarve landscape and seascape photographer.

thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

 

[Paul Amyes]

Therefore people on these forums complain that you can't get deep DOF as you increase format size, but you can if you understand the physics involved. Oh and please tell me where I can get a full frame camera with full tilt, shift and swing movements.

Here.

https://www.cambo.com/en/actus-mini/cambo-actus-mini-view-camera/

I've used an earlier iteration of this by Cambo that came out when megapixels hit double figures. They have their place but they are expensive and hard to find. The biggest downside to them is that they depend upon the lens you are using to have a very large coverage and I found that the lenses best suited to it were the perspective control lenses from Canon. That made it a very expensive proposition.

I would really like to see one of the adapter manufacturers, say Metabones, build a pc lens adapter for m4/3. The ability to then get some movements would be great. I know that Olympus now offers pc control done in camera but it would be nice to do it optically.

 

[Great Bustard]

I used to use a Nikon D3 (full frame) and 105mm f2 for portraits and body shots. That's DoF shallow enough for almost anyone, and 99% of the time you stop down.

.

.

.

And if you want special effects DoF then you need to go FF and have a very deep pocket when you get there.

I dunno, Louis -- a 6D + 100 / 2 ain't all that large, heavy, or expensive, and it can do tricks like:

And, of course, not always for portraits:

So, there are a few examples for a visual context of what photos look like that 1% of the time you aren't stopping down from f/2 at 100mm on FF. ;-)

Coming back late, I've always been a great fan of your "look" (and the eye behind it), I love all those shots.

Kind of you to say!

But firstly most people, including me, have a different look, and secondly you would get more or less the same result with Panny's 42.5 f1.2.

I don't disagree, but would note that the 42.5 / 1.2 on mFT would look more like 100 / 2.8 on FF than 100 / 2. I would just argue that the extra stop wouldn't matter to most.

It's the 85 f1.2 MFT can't live with.

You want "special effects" shallow, buy special effects kit - ie a 35mm dSLR with an f1.4 or f1.2 80 to 120mm lens.

Or go light and cheap with f/1.8 and f/2 primes, or go heavy and expensive with f/2.8 zooms.

By the way, what happens when you lose your model? Your daughter must be nearly a teenager by now, and my partner has gone from being delighted to pose, to isolated body parts only, to "Get that thing away from me" (we are both past 50 these days).

Actually, my daughter isn't in any of the above photos. But I have lost her as a model. Not to worry -- she's a selfie shooting machine and narcissism has nothing on her. ;-)

It's still life and dogs from here on in for me, sadly Even my friends' children have kids of their own now, and the link is too tenuous to take them out as models - too many weirdos about. I have no intention of explaining to a policeman why I am on a beach with a half dressed eight year old at dawn. I'll shoot the rocks (at f5.6).

It is sad what society has come to in that regard, is it not?

 

[Tony8232]

Nice shots.
--

Anthony Gasparetto

Explore Anthony Gasparetto’s 485 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[neil holmes]

I've used an earlier iteration of this by Cambo that came out when megapixels hit double figures. They have their place but they are expensive and hard to find. The biggest downside to them is that they depend upon the lens you are using to have a very large coverage and I found that the lenses best suited to it were the perspective control lenses from Canon. That made it a very expensive proposition.

None the less....it is still an option.....that is all I was pointing out.

I would really like to see one of the adapter manufacturers, say Metabones, build a pc lens adapter for m4/3. The ability to then get some movements would be great. I know that Olympus now offers pc control done in camera but it would be nice to do it optically.

It is large, heavy and expensive but I find the Canon 17 f4 L TS-E is a decent enough lens for M4/3 while still being wide enough for some purposes.

Since the latest firmware updates with the Kipon AF adapter it is ok (previously the adapter had too much distortion for many uses)......I don't like my Lens turbo adapter with the 17 f4 because I have no control over the aperture ....maybe a speed booster would be useful with it.....being a manual focus lens it doesn't need the AF function but adapters need to have electronic communication with the camera.

I don't use it much on my GX7 though since it works so well on my A7s/A7 both as a shift lens and straight with little distortion and I would not buy it JUST to use on M4/3 but it is an option too.

I also have a 24 3.5 L TS-E but don't use that at all on my GX7 really since a "normal" manual focus large heavy tilt shift lens on M4/3 doesn't interest me (I accept that others will).

Maybe the new Venus Optics 15mm macro lens in Canon EF mount with the Kipon AF adapter?

The lens covers FF but on APSC it has some shift ability (doesn't shift FF)....so should be ok for shift on M4/3......30mm FF angle of view is still pretty wide for a shift lens (wider if you used a speed booster instead) and the lens is cheap enough and the adapter is not too dear.....more useful if you have several canon EF mount lenses.

http://www.venuslens.net/

I don't know how well it would work but it may be an option too.

 

[Paul Amyes]

I've used an earlier iteration of this by Cambo that came out when megapixels hit double figures. They have their place but they are expensive and hard to find. The biggest downside to them is that they depend upon the lens you are using to have a very large coverage and I found that the lenses best suited to it were the perspective control lenses from Canon. That made it a very expensive proposition.

None the less....it is still an option.....that is all I was pointing out.

I would really like to see one of the adapter manufacturers, say Metabones, build a pc lens adapter for m4/3. The ability to then get some movements would be great. I know that Olympus now offers pc control done in camera but it would be nice to do it optically.

It is large, heavy and expensive but I find the Canon 17 f4 L TS-E is a decent enough lens for M4/3 while still being wide enough for some purposes.

Since the latest firmware updates with the Kipon AF adapter it is ok (previously the adapter had too much distortion for many uses)......I don't like my Lens turbo adapter with the 17 f4 because I have no control over the aperture ....maybe a speed booster would be useful with it.....being a manual focus lens it doesn't need the AF function but adapters need to have electronic communication with the camera.

I don't use it much on my GX7 though since it works so well on my A7s/A7 both as a shift lens and straight with little distortion and I would not buy it JUST to use on M4/3 but it is an option too.

I also have a 24 3.5 L TS-E but don't use that at all on my GX7 really since a "normal" manual focus large heavy tilt shift lens on M4/3 doesn't interest me (I accept that others will).

Maybe the new Venus Optics 15mm macro lens in Canon EF mount with the Kipon AF adapter?

The lens covers FF but on APSC it has some shift ability (doesn't shift FF)....so should be ok for shift on M4/3......30mm FF angle of view is still pretty wide for a shift lens (wider if you used a speed booster instead) and the lens is cheap enough and the adapter is not too dear.....more useful if you have several canon EF mount lenses.

http://www.venuslens.net/

I don't know how well it would work but it may be an option too.

Thanks for that, it looks sufficiently interesting that I might give it a go.

 

[John King]

Fantastic bit of kit, Neil. Thanks.

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
.
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --
.
The Camera doth not make the Man (nor Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
.
Galleries: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/

Bird Control Officers on active service.