-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Micro 4/3 can do soft bokeh!
- Thread starter Mike Micro 43
- Start date
- Status
Mike Micro 43
Well-known member
- Messages
- 224
- Reaction score
- 702
Much!
--
Webpage: http://peterdegay.wix.com/photos
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/156293126@N06/
That's really helpful - much appreciated!
The centre of the uncurling bud in the last one is a world in miniature. I really like the way that the 45mm performs - the ladybird looks amazing and the image would be great at A3.
The composition with the cine lens is rather striking. May I ask how you see the glow around the flowers as part of your intent?
Thanks
Andrew
PS The bokeh with the cine lens is wonderful - both the composition and rendering.
--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post
Last edited:
Mike Micro 43
Well-known member
- Messages
- 224
- Reaction score
- 702
Hi,That's really helpful - much appreciated!
The centre of the uncurling bud in the last one is a world in miniature. I really like the way that the 45mm performs - the ladybird looks amazing and the image would be great at A3.
The composition with the cine lens is rather striking. May I ask how you see the glow around the flowers as part of your intent?
Thanks
Andrew
PS The bokeh with the cine lens is wonderful - both the composition and rendering.
The glow round the cine lens seems to be because of UV - I didn't use a filter and the bright cine lenses seem very susceptible to it on the EM1 mkII. Sharpening reduces the effect, and if you use a green filter (for mono work) it disappears completely.
Mike.
Hi,That's really helpful - much appreciated!
The centre of the uncurling bud in the last one is a world in miniature. I really like the way that the 45mm performs - the ladybird looks amazing and the image would be great at A3.
The composition with the cine lens is rather striking. May I ask how you see the glow around the flowers as part of your intent?
Thanks
Andrew
PS The bokeh with the cine lens is wonderful - both the composition and rendering.
The glow round the cine lens seems to be because of UV - I didn't use a filter and the bright cine lenses seem very susceptible to it on the EM1 mkII. Sharpening reduces the effect, and if you use a green filter (for mono work) it disappears completely.
Mike.
--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post
tko
Forum Pro
Where did anyone say M43rd couldn't?I think you've misunderstood what you've been reading.
Blur is proportional to magnification. Even a cell phone can provide pleasing background blur in a macro shot.
It's not that a smaller system can't do background blur, not like it's some type of a magic go/no-go switch, it's just with faster lenses and larger formats it's easier to get in a variety of situations. Which may or may not make a difference to your shooting style.
Blur is proportional to magnification. Even a cell phone can provide pleasing background blur in a macro shot.
It's not that a smaller system can't do background blur, not like it's some type of a magic go/no-go switch, it's just with faster lenses and larger formats it's easier to get in a variety of situations. Which may or may not make a difference to your shooting style.
Tuonov2
Senior Member
Care to link to some examples of these?
shinndigg
Veteran Member
Badrmino
Well-known member
My favourite is Canon 135 f2 with an af
speed booster
C
Crazy Micro Four Thirds Dude
Guest
Are we in an argument about an argument about an argument?
Anybody know the DP stands for Digital Photography, why all this wasted time bickering, with all that bickering, you'd think there would have been some clear points made...on either side, and usually an argument worth having usually has 2 good sides, as the thread progressed, I was hard pressed to even find any points at all made, except people are upset, just don't know at what? All done by the few people who didn't post any pics or bring up anything beneficial, in any way, only jumped in, with multiple negative, bicker posts. Almost like those folks have mental problems, or low self-esteem or something.
The basic principles of the aperture stay exactly the same, regardless of your sensor size. So move on.
All this non-sense bickering about such a worthless topic.
I already shared my pic, and thanks to the last few who did people who posted pics or commented on the OPs pics. Which I think were to just show a few soft and shallow DOF shots taken with a micro four thirds camera, and that it can be done.
I agree with freedom of speech, but checking in here a few times really saddens me, and I must say.....
Shame on the folks (all of them) who hijacked the thread, just to bicker. Get over yourselves. I count like 3 topics that all stem from one basic topic....the cool people post a pic to help the OP prove the point, or comment or ask a question.....the others come on and go from thread to thread arguing with people about such worthless topics, that don't deserve 1 post, but they get like 10 or 20 follow-up posts arguing about something barely even photography related.
Post a pic with your bickering, otherwise consider your drivel wasted space.
My posted pic, so I can keep bickering warning x-rated
50mm f2 e-m1 mark1
Complaining about DOF on a crop sensor is a waste of time. WOT
More than one person hearing about this, means there has to be at least 1 source, Ive seen this "hard to get shallow..." Argument, others on here have, obviously the OP has, so....yep it exists and giving you an example would also be a WOT.
Complaining about someone proving that wrong is also a WOT.
Complaing about complaing about someone wanting to prove that is a WOT.
If you have read this far, I am sorry to have wasted your time
I wouldn't have even wasted my time writing this, but I figured Id do so to leave you with this....
If you are going on a forum about photography, to never share or comment on pics, or learn.....and only bicker.....please, there are many forum users who would like their time back, thanks in advance for STOPPING ALL THE BICKERING.
Sorry to have wasted your time,
Brandon
Anybody know the DP stands for Digital Photography, why all this wasted time bickering, with all that bickering, you'd think there would have been some clear points made...on either side, and usually an argument worth having usually has 2 good sides, as the thread progressed, I was hard pressed to even find any points at all made, except people are upset, just don't know at what? All done by the few people who didn't post any pics or bring up anything beneficial, in any way, only jumped in, with multiple negative, bicker posts. Almost like those folks have mental problems, or low self-esteem or something.
The basic principles of the aperture stay exactly the same, regardless of your sensor size. So move on.
All this non-sense bickering about such a worthless topic.
I already shared my pic, and thanks to the last few who did people who posted pics or commented on the OPs pics. Which I think were to just show a few soft and shallow DOF shots taken with a micro four thirds camera, and that it can be done.
I agree with freedom of speech, but checking in here a few times really saddens me, and I must say.....
Shame on the folks (all of them) who hijacked the thread, just to bicker. Get over yourselves. I count like 3 topics that all stem from one basic topic....the cool people post a pic to help the OP prove the point, or comment or ask a question.....the others come on and go from thread to thread arguing with people about such worthless topics, that don't deserve 1 post, but they get like 10 or 20 follow-up posts arguing about something barely even photography related.
Post a pic with your bickering, otherwise consider your drivel wasted space.
My posted pic, so I can keep bickering
warning x-rated50mm f2 e-m1 mark1
Complaining about DOF on a crop sensor is a waste of time. WOT
More than one person hearing about this, means there has to be at least 1 source, Ive seen this "hard to get shallow..." Argument, others on here have, obviously the OP has, so....yep it exists and giving you an example would also be a WOT.
Complaining about someone proving that wrong is also a WOT.
Complaing about complaing about someone wanting to prove that is a WOT.
If you have read this far, I am sorry to have wasted your time
I wouldn't have even wasted my time writing this, but I figured Id do so to leave you with this....
If you are going on a forum about photography, to never share or comment on pics, or learn.....and only bicker.....please, there are many forum users who would like their time back, thanks in advance for STOPPING ALL THE BICKERING.
Sorry to have wasted your time,
Brandon
Last edited:
Yxa
Senior Member
Since we are actually talking about photography and the qualities of specified lenses:-
If you look at OP's image 1, wouldn't you say that the background contributes to the composition and the bokeh of the cine lens is part of that?
Andrew
If you look at OP's image 1, wouldn't you say that the background contributes to the composition and the bokeh of the cine lens is part of that?
Andrew
Mike Micro 43
Well-known member
- Messages
- 224
- Reaction score
- 702
Here's a quote from August 14th 2021 issue of Amateur Photographer (well respected magazine in the UK):
p39: "Ultra-Fast lenses":
"Want shallow depth of field and a lovely blurred background? Try an ultra-large-aperture lens...you'll need the largest aperture lens you can get your hands on, and it also makes sense to work with a full-frame system."
Mike Micro 43
Well-known member
- Messages
- 224
- Reaction score
- 702
Yes indeed - very nice!I get a lot of compliments on the BOKEH in this image. They are always surprised it came from a 4/3 camera.
Mike.
I like it, that's the only thing that matters.
- Status
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum