Micro four thirds and shallow DOF

[Iron Flatline]

Hi, been a while.

Does anybody know anything about Micro-Four/3rd system, and Depth of Field? Is it possible to shoot shallow? The 2:1 lens equiv factor doesn't translate to DOF issues because the capture-plane so close behind the last element. Comments?

 

[kundalini]

Hey Dude, yes it has been a while.....

I've just recently gotten into the 4/3 format with the Oly E-P3. Obviously with the smaller sensor, there may be more effort required to obtain shallow DoF, but like any system, the lens used plays an important factor along with distances.

This was shot with a 40-150mm lens (slow variable aperture) with camera-to-subject distance ~5' (1.5m) and subject-to-background ~20' (6m).

However, I just got a copy of the new 45mm f/1.8 Oly, I can tell you the OOF rendering is fantastic. This was shot with camera-to-subject distance ~2' (.6m) and subject-to-background (person) ~3' (.9m).

I have seen many portraits and shot a few myself and I believe it (45mm) makes a damn fine portrait lens, but that is just an opinion of mine. I'm really digging this m4/3 camera.

 

[Big Mike]

Ah....look who's here! Hello.

You could probably find a DOF calculator for a 4/3rds sensor camera. That would tell you exactly what you'd get.

 

[clanthar]

I have a friend who has the Panasonic G system and I've had a chance to use it and see lots of photos.

In the cases where you'd expect a shallow DOF from a 35mm full frame you'll likewise get a shallow DOF from a micro 4/3.

For example:

Comparable lens focal lengths of 90mm for 35mm full frame and 44mm for the micro 4/3.

Both cameras focused on a person 15 feet away and both lenses set to f/2.

DOF behind the focus plane for the 35mm camera will be about 7 inches.

DOF behind the focus plane for the micro 4/3 will be about 13 inches.

The micro 4/3 system's reduced magnification is giving you 6 extra inches of DOF.

For what it's worth a medium format film camera with the same parameters set would give you 4 inches of DOF behind the focus plane.

Run some simulations through a DOF calculator.

Joe

 

[ann]

that 45 looks sweet, hope it will work with an e-pen1

 

[Helen B]

Hey.

You can do a reasonably accurate comparison between DoF with different formats if you apply the 'crop factor' to both the lens focal length and the f-number. So, if your crop factor is 2, with the same subject distance and final image viewing conditions (with caveats):

a 50 mm lens on full-frame gives the same angle of view as a 50/2 = 25 mm lens on MFT (as is well known); and
f/2 on full frame will have the same DoF as f/1 on MFT (ie 2/2) if the equivalent lens is used.

Fortunately you can get yourself the 25 mm f/0.95 Voigtlander lens now that Cosina are making lenses for MFT.

Good luck,
Helen

 

[Iron Flatline]

...Hmmm... not to mention all the Leica M glass I own that I can then mount on the camera. My wife wants to start a street fashion blog here in Berlin (yes, I know, the one hundreth, but I'm afraid to tell her...) and she wants to shoot like Garance Doree, but doesn't want to shlepp a 5D around. So I thought one of those little Olympus Pen cameras might be cute, and that 25mm Voigt sounds interesting. No AF, I assume... I'l look that up.

Nice to be back here.

 

[epp_b]

Depth of field is a matter of image pane size, aperture and focus distance. Play around with the calculator on this page to see what I mean. The larger the sensor, the shallower the DoF for a given focal length and aperture.

The short answer is: yes, a 4/3rds sensor is large enough to create a pleasant shallow depth of field, though you won't ever see the gloriously-shallow DoF achieved using a 35mm or larger sensor.

 

[usayit]

O.M.G... Iron! How's it been? yes.. been a long time.

I've joined the micro 43 bandwagon as well (probably one of the first and still few here). Depth of field is certainly a bit less but its not something that can't be worked. I sometimes throw the E-PL1 + adapter in with the M9.

Panasonic 45-200mm on an Olympus E-PL1

Me goofing off with a 50mm Summilux Asph on a E-PL1 (wide open)

Panasonic G1 with a 1950s Tele-Takumar 200mm

The weakest points in the system... AF performance and high ISO ( both a significantly better than P&S). Kundalini just got the E-P3... so I'm jealous as the AF is suppose to be significantly better.

 

[bentcountershaft]

Good to see you here again. I don't think I ever mentioned it on FB but I loved your Hopper series.

 

[ann]

usayit, you seem to be using a variety of non=olympus lenses with your e-pen 1. Are you using an adapotor for each type, or will the pen take other mount types?

I tried a zoom olympus lens , don't remember which one, but I had to use an adapotor to fit the pen and it had issues. THe zoom function seemed to drag and grind, so my dealer and I decided it wasn't a good fit. Since that time I have been reluctant to try others and really didn't want to buy the zoom for that camera. RIght now I have the 17mm 2.8 but am thinking an addition might be something to consider.

Any suggestions as where to start?

 

[gsgary]

Glad to see you back, there is only a few that will post NSFW I hope you will be posting a few

 

[usayit]

usayit, you seem to be using a variety of non=olympus lenses with your e-pen 1. Are you using an adapotor for each type, or will the pen take other mount types?

Yup.. There's an adapter for practically every mount type available for the micro 43. All have their limits. The adapters for the standard 43 Olympus lenses to Micro 43 body support autofocus for a select few of their lenses. Kinda nice as I've heard that those lenses are fairly good optically and Olympus has some of the fastest telephoto zooms. Unfortunately, they still AF fairly slow compared to when their attached to a real standard 43 body. There's a link somewhere that lists the lenses that are supported by the adapter. Its basically whether or not the lens can be used with contrast AF rather than the typical phase AF.

The rest of the adapters are simply mounts with proper flange distances. You have to focus and stop down manually. I have
2 K-mount adapters. One of which has a ring designed to automatically open and stop down my lenses (the other two are always stopped down).
3 M42 adapters. Simple screwmount M42 for my Takumars. No control over aperture. I have 3 because I leave the adapters attached to lenses. Much easier to disconnect at the bayonet M43 mount rather than the screwmount.
3 M-mount Leica adapters. These are used quite often as I use this lens type the most.

 

[Derrel]

ALL the examples shown here are showing are very SMALL pieces of the world...really, not much larger than three and a half feet tall by scarcely over two and a half feet wide, and shot at CLOSE distances...this is easy-peasy stuff for producing shallow depth of field....the very tippy-top of a pepper grinder...an 8-inch tall segment of a house cat, six chain link fence links (what is that, just under 18 inches in width???)...come on...as a lens is focused closer and closer to its hyperfocal distance depth of field increases HUGELY, both in terms of amount, and in relative terms...let's see some pictures that are not "close-ups"!!!!

These examples show damned near nothing. Zip. Nada. No offense is meant, but let's see a FULL-LENGTH human figure, photographed at 15 feet. As to the depth of field calculators so popular on-line; they are very fun to use, and quite wonderful tools, but the biggest problem with them is that while it is easy to demarcate the in-focus and out of focus distances on a chart, such charts bear very little resemblance or relevance to the way humans actually perceive the finished photos. For example, the example above says that at 15 feet at f/2 "90mm for 35mm full frame and 44mm for the micro 4/3.

Both cameras focused on a person 15 feet away and both lenses set to f/2.

DOF behind the focus plane for the 35mm camera will be about 7 inches.

DOF behind the focus plane for the micro 4/3 will be about 13 inches.

The micro 4/3 system's reduced magnification is giving you 6 extra inches of DOF."

Well, sorry, but I am going to respectfully call "bull****" on that example. Sure, the "acceptably sharp" region of the photo will be a narrow band, measured in inches, but the ACTUAL PHOTO's background is going to appear pretty close to recognizable at that camera-to-subject distance, even at f/2. At a more-normal f/stop, like let's say f/5.6, the DOF charts are going to give a deeper DOF band of course, but, since the hyperfocal distance of the short lenses used on M4/3 cameras is so,so short, for somebody who wishes to shoot "street fashion", or to show full-length figures with any kind of location, the examples provided in this thread are of basically, ZERO validity for fashion blogging on the streets. None. Xero, with an X. Again, to re-state: depth of field tables and calculators are easy to create and easy to read, but the way the human brain actually "reads" out of focus backgrounds does not translate well to numbers. Depth of field at close distances is fairly shallow, as the kitty cat and pepper grinder pictures show...BUT, as soon as the camera-to-subject distance increases to 10 to 15 feet, with a small capture format, and with any number of different lens focal lengths, the hyperfocal distance is quite,quite short compared with those that go with larger formats and longer focal lengths,and because the focused distance is quite close to hyperfocal, you find yourself with basically, deeeeeep depth of field.

Can any one of you micro 4/3 shooters show us a full-length, standing person, shot from say 17 feet, that exhibits truly good background defocus? I'd love to see it. I could care less about a 4-foot distance, 8 inch-tall slice of the world, or a six-chain-link, 18 inch wide swatch of the world photographed from a little more than arm's length...let's also see some 74 to 94 degree wide-angle shots with shallow DOF...

 

[usayit]

Love you too Derrel....

Maybe if you say pretty please?

Depth of field is certainly a bit less but its not something that can't be worked.

Obviously with the smaller sensor, there may be more effort required to obtain shallow DoF, but like any system, the lens used plays an important factor along with distances.

No one has implied that its as good as the APS nor Full frame.