Micro 4/3 can do soft bokeh!

[Dspider]

your beating a dead horse. shooting a full length portrait different camera is required.

all taken with a fz150.

You would have gotten much better results, quicker, using a larger sensor camera, with less work.

The fz150 (pin head) camera was a blast to use. and the results speak for themselves, you only move on when when you have pushed the boundaries of the sensor size. not a good look when a pin head sensor has smoother bokeh than the posted images blame it on the photographers chosen tools

Ds

--
The confusion starts when the scientists can't agree amongst themselves. Henry F

 

[Gnine]

your beating a dead horse. shooting a full length portrait different camera is required.

all taken with a fz150.

You would have gotten much better results, quicker, using a larger sensor camera, with less work.

The fz150 (pin head) camera was a blast to use. and the results speak for themselves, you only move on when when you have pushed the boundaries of the sensor size. not a good look when a pin head sensor has smoother bokeh than the posted images blame it on the photographers chosen tools

Ds

--
The confusion starts when the scientists can't agree amongst themselves. Henry F

Oh, the irony. Do you understand the meaning of contrarian?

 

[Dspider]

your beating a dead horse. shooting a full length portrait different camera is required.

all taken with a fz150.

You would have gotten much better results, quicker, using a larger sensor camera, with less work.

The fz150 (pin head) camera was a blast to use. and the results speak for themselves, you only move on when when you have pushed the boundaries of the sensor size. not a good look when a pin head sensor has smoother bokeh than the posted images blame it on the photographers chosen tools

Ds

Oh, the irony. Do you understand the meaning of contrarian?

Could you imagine the fierce backlash if these were from a FF camera I would have been accused of baiting.

Ds

--
The confusion starts when the scientists can't agree amongst themselves. Henry F

 

[John Keiffer]

Likewise, wide aperture photography is simply a nice option to have, and isn't exclusively for low-light or the "one eyelash in focus" look:

25mm f/0.6 mFT equivalent

Am I correct that you used a focal reducer to get this? (surprised nobody asked) I think it's very cool.

--
John

 

[cba_melbourne]

One of the criticisms I read repeatedly is that "Micro 4/3 can' t do bokeh" or "not so good for portraiture", "for soft bokeh you need full-frame", etc.

Very nice close-up pictures.

That said, why should bokeh matter for portraiture? There was a recent thread here about a portrait master, so recent it is still on this forum's first page. Take a look at his portraits on this link, there are 8 pages worth looking at. What does this tell you about the value of bokeh in portraiture?

https://karsh.org/photographs/

Bokeh portraiture is only a fairly recent fashion. It is not needed for truly great and unique portraits. Play with light instead, and sharp backgrounds will enhance a portrait and negate the need to isolate the subject with unnatural soft bokeh. Our eyes do not see bokeh in nature, its just a modern photographer's fashion fad.

I mean, sure it is nice to own lenses capable of great bokeh. But that surely does not mean that each and every picture needs to have a completely blurred unnatural background. I personally find it rather uninspiring.

 

[laikam]

 

[kamerakiri]

7Artisans Firely series 25, 35, 50 f0.95

SLR Magic

Voigtlander

Mitakon Speedmaster

All three above have 0.95 lenses for MFT. These can be used for nice soft bokeh.

 

[James Stirling]

One of the criticisms I read repeatedly is that "Micro 4/3 can' t do bokeh" or "not so good for portraiture", "for soft bokeh you need full-frame", etc.

Very nice close-up pictures.

That said, why should bokeh matter for portraiture? There was a recent thread here about a portrait master, so recent it is still on this forum's first page. Take a look at his portraits on this link, there are 8 pages worth looking at. What does this tell you about the value of bokeh in portraiture?

https://karsh.org/photographs/

I would argue that a lot/most of the images have shallow DOF blurry backgrounds . A consequence of the LF imagery that is his norm. In fact you could put forward that the ultrafast shallow DOF imagery of today is a reflection of this portrait "norm". There are many types of portrait not all need to be shallow DOF, environmental portraits where you are trying to show say a skilled artisan in their world will typically have deep DOF.

https://karsh.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Yousuf-Karsh-John-Garo-1931-1852x1960.jpg

https://karsh.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Yousuf-Karsh-Early-Portrait-1396x1960.jpg

https://karsh.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Yousuf-Karsh-Betty-Low-1936-1638x1960.jpg

https://karsh.org/wordpress/wp-cont...enzie-King-Lord-Tweedsmuir-1936-1502x1960.jpg

https://karsh.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Yousuf-Karsh-Noel-Coward-1943-1532x1960.jpg

 

[Ahgre]

Of couse it can do shallow bokeh. It just shoots 2 stops darker (in dof only, not light gathering). I dont think thin dof should be considered important for choosing mft but each to their own.

I personally shoot with 75mm 1.8 for full body shot and 45mm 1.8 for upper shot. Gives me usable background blur for general purposes.

 

[Gnine]

Stumbled over some shots I misplaced, where I pretty much shot an entire event with the Sigma 30. The only thing I think I got wrong, was that the DOF was too thin, and I got a bit too much soft bokeh

 

[Gnine]

It's not difficult, or expensive, to get nice bokeh with m4/3

 

[Gnine]

Couple more gratuitous bokeh shots, on quite a cheap lens. Only paid just over $300 AUD for mine, on a Sigma sale

 

[Yxa]

Panaleica 42.5 F1.2 with nose focus and cats eyes

 

[ahaslett]

Likewise, wide aperture photography is simply a nice option to have, and isn't exclusively for low-light or the "one eyelash in focus" look:

25mm f/0.6 mFT equivalent

Am I correct that you used a focal reducer to get this? (surprised nobody asked) I think it's very cool.

It will be a full-frame 50/1.2 lens on a FF body. There aren’t too many 35/0.9 FF lenses with AF.

Andrew

--
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