how do you live with the 4/3 wide depth of field?

[Topher5]

Any talented musician can make an instrument sing.

Real Pros are not brand loyal the basics are the basics f-stop, shutter speed it's all good.

I know of a magnum Photographer that would shoot on assignment with two Olympus P&S C-5060's, a great camera in its day.

Here's his story...
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844

Anyone who tells you different is trying to rob you of your individuality.

Trust your eye first... the art will follow.



--
C. Ashworth

 

[CharlesB58]

I'll speak in regards to portraiture.

I handle the 4/3 dof properties a number of ways. First is to not expect the equipment to substitute for my own knowledge and experience, which is what it seems a lot of people do who fret over 4/3 dof and bokeh issues.

Second is I tend to avoid the fads and conventions, therefore my portraits aren't always intended to have "creamy bokeh".

Technically, I take time to chose lens to subject distance and focal length, relative to the background, to get the effect I want. I find it funny to see people park a portrait subject in front of a busy background, depending on shallow DOF to avoid distraction, when pros will usually be more selective about the background to begin with. Why? Because a lot of pros don't like to shoot lenses wide open unless they have no choice . Any decent pro will tell you that whenever possible, careful selection of background, lighting and positioning of the subject do a lot more to make for a good portrait than simply shooting wide open to get creamy bokeh.

--

Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.

http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/

http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/

 

[Sergey_Green]

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


[/QUOTE]
What catches my eye are the childrens backs, kind of an interesting way to photograph a group.

--
[I] - sergey [/I]

 

[Jon Stock]

Lots of cheap fast lenses out there. Fast AF lenses are big money but the MF lenses are selling for cheap.

Olympus Zuiko 55mm f/1.2
Current bid: US $109.50

http://cgi.ebay.ca/Olympus-Zuiko-55mm-f-1-2-superfast-lens-NR_W0QQitemZ260605172315QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCamera_Lenses?hash=item3cad475a5b#ht_500wt_1182

50mm 1.7 ROKKOR X lens
Starting bid: US $15.00
Bid history: 0 bids
Lens is in "new like" condition.

http://cgi.ebay.ca/50mm-1-7-ROKKOR-X-lens_W0QQitemZ260607387404QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCamera_Lenses?hash=item3cad69270c#ht_500wt_1182

Note: I am not the seller or either item - this is not a violation of forum rules.

Lots of really good lenses sell everyday for under $150.
--
Jon

 

[a12345]

can helkp me please post link of a good one? just to avoid buying wrong item.

And also need OM to m4/3 adapter too

THanks!

 

[Ted C.]

friends and family who have enjoyed my photos. The increased dof advantage is one of the reasons why I chose this format (especially as light fades). I have had no use for the razor thin dof for portraits or most other subject choice and see most discussions here about shallow dof rapidly spin into nothing more than trying to win the "debate" for arguments sake or some other self-fulfillment.

At the end of the day it seems to me that those who need the requirements for shallow dof for photography purposes have usually moved on from 4/3rds gracefully and leave this forum in peace. As for me, I'll continue to use 4/3rds and gloat/bask in the superiority of my choice for my needs .
--



'How one responds to failure, not success, could be the better measure of character.'

 

[acwalbur]

--
Good shooting.

• Adam

Equipment in plan

 

[Rriley]

and probably 35% on topic
the rest is ranting, sh!t fights and shaded abuse

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

 

[Jon Stock]

can helkp me please post link of a good one? just to avoid buying wrong item.

And also need OM to m4/3 adapter too

THanks!

People have said nice things about an adapter from Russia that has an AF chip in it. It will fake the signal from a lens and the AF point in the viewfinder will light up if the image is in focus at that point.

I don't own one of these.

Hopefully someone else does and can comment.
--
Jon

 

[Kweide]

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

Sorry Martin,

but you are wrong. The Sigma 50 f1.4 even does a very good job on m43 namely here my E-P1 connected thru Pana DMW-MA1
It is a gem !

Regards Klaus

 

[windsprite]

Stopping down to get more DOF is just not something one has to do much with 4/3, nor is carrying a huge lens with the lowest two stops virtually unusable.

Sorry, which lenses are "virtually unusable"? Several times I've seen you make comments to that effect about the 70-200/2.8 lenses on FF. I believe there was something about a "Gaussian blur that you can't turn off."

I have several SG and HG Zuikos, and since last year I've also been shooting with a 70-200 VRI on APS-C, and more recently, FX. I can honestly say I am at least as happy using that lens wide open as I am any of my Zuikos. I have never seen anything even remotely resembling a Gaussian blur, except for the ones I put there myself.

Julie

 

[ch01]

I feel DOF is a bit overrated sometimes, there are people obsessed with shallow DOF while ignoring other aspects of image.

Shallow DOF may be able to help you get rid of distracting elements, but deep DOF doesn't stop you from capturing the moment, if you find something bothering, then you may think of a way to throw the distracting element out of photo, like by composition.

But if you are shooting wedding or portraiture, I do think shallow DOF provided by 4/3 is inadequate, use canon/nikon in this case.

In a word, each system is created with a purpose, I simply don't think 43 or m43 is the system you should rely on to generate shallow DOF.

--
http://www.chenghelucky.blogspot.com

 

[john120588]

the smaller sensor makes the dof less narrow, and bokeh less creamy.

photography are not just super shallow background, there are alot of subjest need sharp background, like jewelry, group photo, company event for-example need the banner or logo at the background to be sharp, so smaller sensor can take advantage of this.

if you like shallow background you should go with a full frame camera or even a digital back