Ambivalent - depth of field
- Thread starter payasam
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 4
- Views 1K
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I often shoot with a wider angle lens than I'd prefer because it does give more depth of field. With a view camera you could swing the lensboard and camera back to get both barbers in focus at a larger f/stop. Nice shot, Mukul.
gavinlg
Veteran
Payasam, I always used to dislike the 4/3rds sensors because of their effective reduced depth of field, but recently I've found that for any serious documentary or travel work I actually much prefer it. The way that I see it is:
-4/3rds allows a shallow depth of field when NEEDED, but generally allow for more DOF allowing me to use larger apertures in most situations, allowing ISO to be kept down, thus allowing me to utilize the sweet spots of the zuiko lenses.
-35mm or "full frame/FX" cameras/lenses need to be stopped down to get a satisfactory DOF, needing a higher ISO, lower shutterspeeds etc. f4 on an olymus E-3 equals f8 on a canon 5d in relative Depth of Field, and in most situations the larger DOF of the 4/3rds sensor is preferable, except in special circumstances like wedding photography where ultra thin DOF is fashionable in portraits.
-4/3rds allows a shallow depth of field when NEEDED, but generally allow for more DOF allowing me to use larger apertures in most situations, allowing ISO to be kept down, thus allowing me to utilize the sweet spots of the zuiko lenses.
-35mm or "full frame/FX" cameras/lenses need to be stopped down to get a satisfactory DOF, needing a higher ISO, lower shutterspeeds etc. f4 on an olymus E-3 equals f8 on a canon 5d in relative Depth of Field, and in most situations the larger DOF of the 4/3rds sensor is preferable, except in special circumstances like wedding photography where ultra thin DOF is fashionable in portraits.
gavinlg
Veteran
Let me rephrase - I'm not sure I explained myself particularly well...
I find the slightly smaller sensor in the 4/rds camera lends itself very well to actual photography whereby it isn't the technical aspects of the photo that make the photo good, moreso the content. There is less to think about as (say) on the 12-60 f2.8-4 SWD lens, shooting at 14mm (28mm), at f5 will get almost everything in your field of view in focus.
I find the slightly smaller sensor in the 4/rds camera lends itself very well to actual photography whereby it isn't the technical aspects of the photo that make the photo good, moreso the content. There is less to think about as (say) on the 12-60 f2.8-4 SWD lens, shooting at 14mm (28mm), at f5 will get almost everything in your field of view in focus.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Thank, Al. Glad you like the picture. In the 1960s I used to go through the issues of Linhof Photo Technik which a friend got. Stunning stuff. Also some pretty remarkable effects with the camera movements. But you have to admit that even a relatively small "hand or stand" camera is a great deal bigger than a Leica or a digital SLR.
True, Gavin, that for certain kinds of work -- landscape and architecture are obvious examples -- increased depth of field is an advantage. Possibly because I'm so used to film, though, and because I do a fair bit of portrait work, I find myself irritated by the results of the 4/3 sensor.
True, Gavin, that for certain kinds of work -- landscape and architecture are obvious examples -- increased depth of field is an advantage. Possibly because I'm so used to film, though, and because I do a fair bit of portrait work, I find myself irritated by the results of the 4/3 sensor.
Similar threads
