# Micro four thirds and shallow DOF



## Iron Flatline (Oct 7, 2011)

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 (Oct 7, 2011)

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 (Oct 7, 2011)

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 (Oct 7, 2011)

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 (Oct 7, 2011)

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


----------



## Helen B (Oct 7, 2011)

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 (Oct 7, 2011)

...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 (Oct 7, 2011)

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 (Oct 7, 2011)

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 (Oct 7, 2011)

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


----------



## ann (Oct 7, 2011)

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 (Oct 7, 2011)

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


----------



## usayit (Oct 7, 2011)

ann said:


> 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 (Oct 7, 2011)

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 (Oct 7, 2011)

Love you too Derrel....

Maybe if you say pretty please?



			
				usayit said:
			
		

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





kundalini said:


> 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.


----------



## kundalini (Oct 7, 2011)

usayit said:


> Maybe if you say pretty please?


Not even if. 



Tangerines and pumpkins are both orange in color and available in the fall / winter seasons. I guess they must be the same thing, right? 

And you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip either.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 7, 2011)

kundalini said:


> Tangerines and pumpkins are both orange in color and available in the fall / winter seasons. I guess they must be the same thing, right?


Hmmm...  "Tangerine-o-Lantern"...   You know, I don't really see it catching on.


----------



## kundalini (Oct 7, 2011)

tirediron said:


> Hmmm... "Tangerine-o-Lantern"... You know, I don't really see it catching on.


The Tangerine Pie at Thanksgiving wasn't so much of a hit, but on the other hand, my Pumpkin Tart seemed to please the crowd.




For Iron....

With the 45mm at f/1.8, ISO200, 1/50s in my local shop just testing out the lens.









at f/1.8, ISO200, 1/40s


----------



## Iron Flatline (Oct 8, 2011)

Thanks... yeah shallow DOF at small distances is possible at most apertures. The question is really whether I can isolate a person from the background at 20 feet or more. It doesn't have to be total blur, just a clear difference. I guess I will go try.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 8, 2011)

f/1.8 with a 45mm prime. Half-body human figure at less than 15 feet. Background still clearly visible, objects still clearly recognizable. Lots of strong green lo-CA around the edges of out of focus objects in the background. And yet, the depth of field calculator would show that the depth of field is less than a 13-inch deep zone,right? Satisfactory defocus or not? The f/1.8 aperture speed of that prime lens is a reasonably cutting-edge, wide aperture for the format in a native lens design. The zooms are much slower, will come nowhere close to allowing this much background defocus, especially on wider angles of view, since this 45mm functions as a medium telephoto length on m4/3. Maybe some of the expensive Leica M-glass would turn in a better performance WRT to the strong longitudinal CA the 45mm prime is showing.

To me, I look at the m4/3 sensor size and think "Kodak 110". The images are the same tiny size. (110 film - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


----------



## usayit (Oct 8, 2011)

More examples for Iron:

Noctilux 50mm @ f/5.6 on an E-PL1







SMC Takumar 105mm @ f/2.8 on an E-PL1






PS> There are no high speed native zooms for the system so that should be a consideration.   Primes such as Kundalini's 45mm are trickling into market.  Adapting fast Leica glass longer than 35mm, its no problem... quite attractive actually.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Oct 8, 2011)

Yeah, but I want AF for Karen. So the Leica glass makes me happy, but won't be of immediate use to her. She used to shoot, so she'll figure it out pretty quick.


----------



## jake337 (Oct 8, 2011)

Heres a 4/3 with legacy lens group on flickr. Once in the group I searched portraits and this is what it gave me.

Flickr: Search Micro Four Thirds cameras using alternative & legacy lenses

I think this photo shows what kind of subject to background distance needed for some nice backgrounds.

All sizes | One Light Portrait | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


----------



## Iron Flatline (Oct 8, 2011)

Thank you, I appreciate the effort. Some of those are quite interesting, though Portraits is not central to my needs... Of course, I'm not the only one interested in this particular thread.



jake337 said:


> Heres a 4/3 with legacy lens group on flickr. Once in the group I searched portraits and this is what it gave me.
> 
> Flickr: Search Micro Four Thirds cameras using alternative & legacy lenses
> 
> ...


----------



## usayit (Oct 8, 2011)

Iron Flatline said:


> Yeah, but I want AF for Karen. So the Leica glass makes me happy, but won't be of immediate use to her. She used to shoot, so she'll figure it out pretty quick.



Here's a one page reference for all micro 43 lenses currently out there:

Four Thirds | Four Thirds | Micro Four Thirds | Chart(Lenses)

There's always the following that are known good ones:

Olympus 12mm f/2
Olympus 45mm f/1.8
Panasonic 20mm f/1.7
Panasonic/Leica 25mm f/1.4 Summilux
Panasonic/Leica 45mm f/2.8 Macro

The 20mm f/1.7 is a good "pancake" and a bargain "normal" lens price wise (under $400)... decent following.   I just got one used so I don't have many samples to post.  The newish Pan-Leica 25mm, Oly 45mm, and Oly 12mm are all fairly recently released with much better build and optics than what the system had available previously.   I also have the 14mm f2.5 but I think it won't fit your needs... I like it because its so small.

For manual lenses, you will want something with an EVF viewfinder of some sort.   Either the Panasonic G# with the built in or an Olympus with EVF attachment.

 The TPF doesn't have many micro 43 users... really heavily slanted towards Canon and Nikon (more so towards Nikon these days).   Theres probably less than 10 and I've only really seen a handful active.   You can try this forum:

Mu-43.com - Micro Four Thirds News and Rumors

If you need more info, I have a couple reviews posted here on the G1 and E-PL1.  Kundalini can share some thoughts from a PM I sent and recent experience since purchase a month or so ago.  Its not a replacement for the DSLR but its sure a lot of fun because of the size.  With these new m43 cameras, I almost see no need for a high end P&S anymore.


----------



## ann (Oct 8, 2011)

Thanks for posting these, i will take a look as i love my pen and use it as a point and shoot.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Oct 10, 2011)

Ordered the EP-3 with the 25mm Summilux, and EVF. Will let you know how it goes.


----------



## usayit (Oct 10, 2011)

Iron Flatline said:


> Ordered the EP-3 with the 25mm Summilux, and EVF. Will let you know how it goes.



OOoooo  Nice!

Please do let us know...


----------



## Overread (Oct 10, 2011)

Iron - good to see you again on the site!

Also good luck with the new camera, it will be interesting to hear how it goes!


----------



## djacobox372 (Oct 11, 2011)

You need faster lenses to get a shallow dof with smaller sensor cameras.  When 35mm film was introduced it also introduced f2 and f1 lenses along with it, so it wasnt an issue back then, but the sub 35mm offerings have failed to give us faster lenses which makes it impossible to acheive the same shallow dof shots you can acheive on a larger format camera.


----------



## kundalini (Oct 11, 2011)

Iron Flatline said:


> Ordered the EP-3 with the 25mm Summilux, and EVF. Will let you know how it goes.


Very cool. I will be most interested in seeing images with the Summilux.

I'm heading to the Blue Ridge Parkway for a week starting Saturday for my annual pilgrimage to view the fall foliage in the NC mountains. I placed a 10 day rental for the Panasonic 7-14mm f/4 for the trip. The area should still be in peak colors next week.  I'm also taking the D700 and Holy Trinity.  I want to see comparison shots between the formats in print.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Oct 12, 2011)

Well, it just got here, and will shoot a little this weekend. It's been YEARS since I got all excited about gear, but WOW this thing is cool. My wife is VERY unhappy about the crush I have on her camera. The Leica lens is so... Leica. It even has a squared-off hood. <chubby>


----------

