Santtu Määttänen
Visual Poet
I've heard it said many times that smaller sensor makes playing with DOF harder and that this is a deciding factor for some when considering the camera. Well true it makes it harder and true you cant achieve as shallow DOF as on FF with same tools. But with faster lenses DOF is shallow enough for most applications. Few examples below with Nikkor 50mm/F1.2
Attachments
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Well, "harder" means more difficult. It does not mean impossible.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Ultra-shallow DOF is not something I use very often, so I find the DOF possibilities on m4/3 to be just fine. And my two favorite fast lenses on m4/3, the Pana 20/1.7 and adapted Olympus-Pen 40/1.4, focus much more closely than your average rangefindeer lens (12 inches for the 40 and 6 (!) inches for the 20), I make up some of my shallow DOF options there.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Explain, please, TWoK.
Santtu Määttänen
Visual Poet
PCB_RF
Established
Great shots! m4/3 sensors aren't too small for shallow dof work, with the right focal length and lens speed. Ultrafast normal lenses are the cost/performance champs for this kind of work. You can find beater Nikon 55/1.2 lenses with good glass for around $200. Depth of field is _very_ narrow, so getting sharp faces (for example) with moving subjects can be challenging. If f/1.2 lenses are out of budget, there are literally heaps of 50/1.4 lenses selling every day for $50-$75. f/1.4 dof within 5-15 feet is still shallow enough to isolate subjects, and you have a bit more margin for error.
If someone wants to check dof tables, an interesting question is whether an average 85/2.8 slr lens has similar shallow dof to a 50/1.2 at closer distances. They'd be cheaper than most 50/1.2.
And +1 for mabelsound on adapted rf lenses having close-focusing issues. A $250 Zeiss/Contax 50/1.4 focuses to 8 inches or so, while an $800+ Leica 50/1.4 Summiluix-M won't get you much closer than 1 meter. I tend to forget this when shooting with real rfs, since the parallax error makes shooting that close not very practical.
If someone wants to check dof tables, an interesting question is whether an average 85/2.8 slr lens has similar shallow dof to a 50/1.2 at closer distances. They'd be cheaper than most 50/1.2.
And +1 for mabelsound on adapted rf lenses having close-focusing issues. A $250 Zeiss/Contax 50/1.4 focuses to 8 inches or so, while an $800+ Leica 50/1.4 Summiluix-M won't get you much closer than 1 meter. I tend to forget this when shooting with real rfs, since the parallax error makes shooting that close not very practical.
yanidel
Well-known
I think you are right when talking about longer lenses or close distances , but for wide angles lenses m4/3 do not create enough separation at mid distances (3-5 meters) compared to let's say a 35mm Lux on the M9. Even the 20mm 1.7 (which is a 40mm FOV) seems to have a pretty large DOF if the subject is not closer than 2 meters.
That is by the way, why I never considered buying into that system.
That is by the way, why I never considered buying into that system.
