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...
