Sergey_Green
Forum Pro
And yet all birds are sufficiently in focus, which does not disprove the initial point I made.
--
- sergey
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
how do you live with the 4/3 wide depth of field?
- Thread starter a12345
- Start date
--
- sergey
luisflorit
Veteran Member
Not this is a good news! I suppose you refer to AF also. I've both TCs, so nice to know.
Thanks,
L.
--
My gallery: http://w3.impa.br/~luis/photos
Oly Ee3 + 12--60 + 50--200 + EeC-14 + Oly EfEl50R
Pany FZee50 + Oly EfEl50 + TeeCon17 + Raynx 150 & 250
Nikn CeePee4500; Cann SDee500
The question, when is DOF shallow enough ( for example in 3/4 body people photography ).
The answer is, with my Sigma 50 1.4 the DOF is shallow enough.
Unfortionately that lens does not AF on m4/3.
So perhaps ( for Oly PEN shooters ) the ZD 50 .0 or PL 25 1.4 ( indoors ) would be halfway good, but indeed the problem is that m4/3 's useable AF lenses are not complete.
Perhaps you can add an E-620 + Sigma 50 1.4 to your camera list, that would be cheaper than a PL25
If its ok to manual focus, simply add a Sigma 50 1.4 ( and the mft 4/3 adapter ) to your equipment
Martin
The answer is, with my Sigma 50 1.4 the DOF is shallow enough.
Unfortionately that lens does not AF on m4/3.
So perhaps ( for Oly PEN shooters ) the ZD 50 .0 or PL 25 1.4 ( indoors ) would be halfway good, but indeed the problem is that m4/3 's useable AF lenses are not complete.
Perhaps you can add an E-620 + Sigma 50 1.4 to your camera list, that would be cheaper than a PL25
If its ok to manual focus, simply add a Sigma 50 1.4 ( and the mft 4/3 adapter ) to your equipment
Martin
Trevor Carpenter
Forum Pro
Wide depth of field, huh! some of us wildlife shooters come from P&S cameras and would desperately like a wider DOF. It is extremely frustrating that I still struggle to get insect pictures of the quality I could with my FZ50. I know you portrait photographers like your pictures out of focus but spare a thoght for the rest of us who just want to be able to get all our subject in focus.
--
Oly e-fivetwenty, seventy-threehundred, eFZed50, Oly TeeCON17, RaynoxDCR150 DCR250
My Galleries are at
http://picasaweb.google.com/trevorfcarpenter
--
Oly e-fivetwenty, seventy-threehundred, eFZed50, Oly TeeCON17, RaynoxDCR150 DCR250
My Galleries are at
http://picasaweb.google.com/trevorfcarpenter
http://www.noktor.com
Unfortionately Manual focus, and unfortionately no electric coneections at all ( as the Sigma 50 1.4 has ), but the noktor is a F/0.95 lens
Martin
Unfortionately Manual focus, and unfortionately no electric coneections at all ( as the Sigma 50 1.4 has ), but the noktor is a F/0.95 lens
Martin
Brent Lossing
Forum Pro
You have got quite a few answers from people that gave the replies you were probably expecting - get a larger aperature lens, shoot macro, increase the distance between the subject and the background, or get closer to the subject.
However for a smaller sensor I think your real question could be either:
- how do you isolate the subject with a deeper DOF
- how do you take a picture where there is no "creamy bokeh"
--
Thanks,
brent
http://lossing.zenfolio.com/
To your eye maybe...it often depends on the monitor. I hardly sharpen these at all...just IrfanView's standard setting after resizing. I have thousands of photos like these. Too sharp? Too soft? Too bright? Too dark? Whatever you like; it's often very subjective too. How's the hockey game?
Olympus E-510, Zuiko 70-300mm lens, ISO400, 1/200, F16, 300mm FL, cropped
Olympus E-510, Zuiko 70-300mm lens, ISO400, 1/200, F16, 300mm FL, cropped
More depth of field is a big pro to me.
When using the big tele tuna 300/2.8 with ec 14 or ec20, depth of field is always very narrow. Stopping down to f11 or 14 gives in many cases acceptable depth of field in 4/3rds, almost impossible to achieve with 1200mm FF in the same shooting situation.
Narrow depth of field is easily achieved when using the f2 lenses or the 1.4 lens.
With with these lenses like 50/2.0 30/1.4 or 150/2.0 or 35-100 bokeh becomes very creamy and beautiful and narrow depth of field.
Also with 50-200 mm lens a reasonable level of bokeh and narrow DOF can be achieved. Just needs some practise.
When using the big tele tuna 300/2.8 with ec 14 or ec20, depth of field is always very narrow. Stopping down to f11 or 14 gives in many cases acceptable depth of field in 4/3rds, almost impossible to achieve with 1200mm FF in the same shooting situation.
Narrow depth of field is easily achieved when using the f2 lenses or the 1.4 lens.
With with these lenses like 50/2.0 30/1.4 or 150/2.0 or 35-100 bokeh becomes very creamy and beautiful and narrow depth of field.
Also with 50-200 mm lens a reasonable level of bokeh and narrow DOF can be achieved. Just needs some practise.
the smaller sensor makes the dof less narrow, and bokeh less creamy.
what are the views of oly's pro photographers? Becase I am using the pen, and experience that problem
i ask here not in mft forum because in mft forum mostly casual shooters who dont care about this. But you guys who owns oly dslr system should know how....
thanks
sarang675498
Forum Enthusiast
There are plenty of shots that can be taken optimally with the 4/3 DoF. If the majority of shots that you take require depth of a different nature, I'd suggest switching to a bigger / smaller format as necessary.
-Sarang
-Sarang
federanghino
Member
Dear,
i think that the discussion in reply to your post is going wrong ;-)
M43 is a wonderful system, also beacause you can access to a lot of very good, very fast, very sharp used vintage lenses... with the right adapter ;-)
You have to shot in manual or in aperture priority and you loose autofocus, but manual focus assist magnification can help much.
You can find this kind of lenses on ebay and are soon inexpensive.
Personally i find old OM and Contax/Yashica system very interesting. Also the M42 mount have some very good and affordable lenses... for example, if you like shooting birds you can get a pentacon 200mm f 4 for less then $150.
Bye!
Fede
i think that the discussion in reply to your post is going wrong ;-)
M43 is a wonderful system, also beacause you can access to a lot of very good, very fast, very sharp used vintage lenses... with the right adapter ;-)
You have to shot in manual or in aperture priority and you loose autofocus, but manual focus assist magnification can help much.
You can find this kind of lenses on ebay and are soon inexpensive.
Personally i find old OM and Contax/Yashica system very interesting. Also the M42 mount have some very good and affordable lenses... for example, if you like shooting birds you can get a pentacon 200mm f 4 for less then $150.
Bye!
Fede
Topher5
Leading Member
Oh I do like fringe good season finale wasn't it.
--
C. Ashworth
--
C. Ashworth
I personally am not much for paying close to $1000 for a lens that doesn't quite cover the frame, at least spec-wise. while its f/0.95 is indeed nice, I would rather spend the same money on either a CV 1.2/35 or 1.1/50. bit slower, but made to cover a 135-film image circle versus a 1" format sensor (i.e. smaller than the one in MFT or FT cameras), plus IMO the resulting images are sharper and of higher quality.
as for this thread in general... use and choose the gear depending on your needs. if I were starting from scratch and really needed subject isolation, I would probably get myself a 5D Mk.II with a 1.2/85 L lens or a 1.2/50 L. if I wanted a system that allows for more depth without sacrificing shutter speed, FT is pretty nice. similar if I wanted a telephoto system that doesn't weigh so much. (there's also the thing about how usually FT lenses are sharp even wide-open, while other lenses get sharper once stopped down a bit, but that's getting a bit off-topic.)
different if you are already dedicated to a system... but again, this should've been considered when you bought into it in the first place. I imagine the size and price was a selling point for going FT/MFT. super-shallow DOF usually requires large and thus expensive glass, in addition to a large sensor (also more costly). of course, since such systems aren't going to be sought out by a large group of photographers, the smaller production runs also lends itself to increased prices. going with Leica mitigates the size issue... but at the cost of further increased prices of course.
there's price, size, and performance, among other factors. some can be had in one system at the same time, but usually won't find everything you need in one place.
I use a few systems (FT/MFT, Epson R-D1s, Sigma DP2, film rangefinders) and am considering getting into more (the aforementioned 135-film-frame DSLR's, medium format digitals). I use each depending on what I want to accomplish, and have no complaints about any.
as for this thread in general... use and choose the gear depending on your needs. if I were starting from scratch and really needed subject isolation, I would probably get myself a 5D Mk.II with a 1.2/85 L lens or a 1.2/50 L. if I wanted a system that allows for more depth without sacrificing shutter speed, FT is pretty nice. similar if I wanted a telephoto system that doesn't weigh so much. (there's also the thing about how usually FT lenses are sharp even wide-open, while other lenses get sharper once stopped down a bit, but that's getting a bit off-topic.)
different if you are already dedicated to a system... but again, this should've been considered when you bought into it in the first place. I imagine the size and price was a selling point for going FT/MFT. super-shallow DOF usually requires large and thus expensive glass, in addition to a large sensor (also more costly). of course, since such systems aren't going to be sought out by a large group of photographers, the smaller production runs also lends itself to increased prices. going with Leica mitigates the size issue... but at the cost of further increased prices of course.
there's price, size, and performance, among other factors. some can be had in one system at the same time, but usually won't find everything you need in one place.
I use a few systems (FT/MFT, Epson R-D1s, Sigma DP2, film rangefinders) and am considering getting into more (the aforementioned 135-film-frame DSLR's, medium format digitals). I use each depending on what I want to accomplish, and have no complaints about any.
TheEye
Senior Member
Although I did foresee the swapperoo of "our" and the alternate Olivia, I did enjoy the finale quite a bit. L. Nimoy left the show and went into real life retirement with a bang.
--
http://shuttermadness.wordpress.com/
TheEye
Senior Member
J
jkrumm
Guest
To me, this kind of depth of field is just about perfect for "people in environment" shots. Background is just slightly out of focus (the middle strip a little more with heat waves) and the on my computer the subject area looks almost super-real, providing a subtle but still there separation of subject...
26mm, f4.5
--
John Krumm
Juneau, AK
26mm, f4.5
--
John Krumm
Juneau, AK
TheEye
Senior Member
That is a good example of an image with very natural looking DOF. It's like you are there, looking at the group of kids in that environment The background is OOF, but the background scenery is fully recognizable and adds a sense of place to the picture. Sure, you could take the picture of the kids with more shallow DOF, but further subject/background separation would not add anything to the image, and, in an extreme scenario, you could wind up with an image that may as well have been shot in the studio.
Someone who is new to photography may be easily wowed by the impact of very deep or very shallow DOF. Subtlety, in application and recognition, requires at least a bit sophistication.
--
http://shuttermadness.wordpress.com/
Someone who is new to photography may be easily wowed by the impact of very deep or very shallow DOF. Subtlety, in application and recognition, requires at least a bit sophistication.
--
http://shuttermadness.wordpress.com/
John King
Forum Pro
Gidday Tom (& John)
The photo says what needs to be said.
It would catch the eye of most people for the human feelings the image evokes.
It has a sense of place, time, and action (funny that, Shakespeare had these ideas 400 years ago ... the 'three unities' ... . According to Wikipedia, Aristotle only really concerned himself with the last of these; but then, who knows with Wikipedia?). I am happy to go with Bill S, lol.
Breadth, width, depth (in the philosophical sense), plus the three unities should be combined by the skill of the photographer into something that tells a story of some sort.
This may or may not involve particular DoF effects for achieving its harmony (or otherwise ... ).
RSI (repetitive strain injury) can also be a psychological effect as well as being the well-known physical effect. Forcing everything into the same mould, often artificially so, leads to RSI of the brain, IMNSHO.
Variation in seeing and capturing leads to more acute vision and better captures; not just shallow DoF ...
FWIW ...
--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
-- -- --
The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php
Bird Control Officers on active service.
Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group
I agree with you.
The photo says what needs to be said.
It would catch the eye of most people for the human feelings the image evokes.
It has a sense of place, time, and action (funny that, Shakespeare had these ideas 400 years ago ... the 'three unities' ... . According to Wikipedia, Aristotle only really concerned himself with the last of these; but then, who knows with Wikipedia?). I am happy to go with Bill S, lol.
Yeah. Hollywood, here we come, lol ...
I agree.
Breadth, width, depth (in the philosophical sense), plus the three unities should be combined by the skill of the photographer into something that tells a story of some sort.
This may or may not involve particular DoF effects for achieving its harmony (or otherwise ... ).
RSI (repetitive strain injury) can also be a psychological effect as well as being the well-known physical effect. Forcing everything into the same mould, often artificially so, leads to RSI of the brain, IMNSHO.
Variation in seeing and capturing leads to more acute vision and better captures; not just shallow DoF ...
FWIW ...
--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
-- -- --
The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php
Bird Control Officers on active service.
Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group
olympus620
Forum Enthusiast
Doesn't OLY need smaller lens\glass sizes for the same DOF effect? I am no rocket scientist but isnt the sensor size issue just a matter of scale? If so thats not a problem but an asset. My bag is too heavy already.
Im too new to have a view or be a "pro", but I will say shooting in low light with kit lenses sucks. Because of my small budget I purchsed a few OM lenses to get me by. The 50mm f/1.4 is the best lens I own for DOF for under $50.00. the 1.8 which isn't far behind as quality goes was $20.00. One day I'll have the AF versions but for now DOF is not a problem.
--i ask here not in mft forum because in mft forum mostly casual shooters who dont care about this. But you guys who owns oly dslr system should know how....
thanks
oly620
I am not a pro and only post for humors sake so please dont flame me.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum