m4/3's Can't Do Narrow Depth of Field or Blow Away the Background into Pure Nothing..............So Why Even Try w/ Such a Limited System?

Phocal

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,744
Location
Anchorage
These people watching me at the lake crawl towards this duck were amazed that I was able to get as close as I did (I actually could have and if I had the 150/2 I would have). I told them the trick was to only move closer when she was distracted with preening and then to only move forward a little bit each time. It took me about 20 or 30 minutes to get into position and around 15 to back away, they asked me why I moved just as slowly when moving away. I explained that I liked getting close as possible to my subjects but I want to cause them as little stress as possible so I always try to get away without spooking them and consider it a fail if I do.

50113338733_5a1fff1e82_o.jpg Duck Face by Phocal Art, on Flickr

I have no idea what the DoF is in this photo and it brings up one of my two complaints with the EM1X. The exif doesn't appear to have focus distance and this is really going to drive me crazy because I actually use that information when evaluating images.

Edit - I am guessing the DoF is around 1/4 inch, maybe a bit less.
 

Hypilein

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
1,491
I sometimes want less and most of the times want more. I think the PL42,5 f1.2 would probably solve the first problem. I never wanted less DoF with my P100-300. With Underwater macro not enough DOF is basically a constant problem and with landscapes if I have a very close foreground element I sometimes have to stack 2 or 3 focus layers.
 

Phocal

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,744
Location
Anchorage
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
Did you also tell them that you honed your skills doing the same thing with gators in the Texas swamp?

Nice image.
Thanks and no I didn't but should have. Not sure I much I will practice the getting close as possible when it comes to bears, but we will see when I can finally find one to photograph.
 

Phocal

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,744
Location
Anchorage
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
With gators backing away quickly is unlikely to stress them..
Actually it can and will. They don't like fast movements around them and will react, another reason to move slowly around them. It also depends on size of gator, the 8' and up tend to not care but below that size they are definitely nervous around a person.
 

Phocal

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,744
Location
Anchorage
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
I sometimes want less and most of the times want more. I think the PL42,5 f1.2 would probably solve the first problem. I never wanted less DoF with my P100-300. With Underwater macro not enough DOF is basically a constant problem and with landscapes if I have a very close foreground element I sometimes have to stack 2 or 3 focus layers.
Depends on what I am shooting and how I want the final image to look. When I shot full frame I stopped down most times because the DoF was just to narrow, especially when getting close like I prefer. So have always been happy with what I get from m4/3 and I know I can get narrow when I want/need to.
 

demiro

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
2,984
Location
northeast US
Whatever that DoF was, you got it pretty darn close ;-). I appreciate you are saying "you fail should you spook them as you back away"!

Cheers
This is really big, especially these days, when you read about idiots being gored trying to take a selfie with a bison. I've always appreciated that Phocal places being a steward of nature way ahead of capturing great images. If only more folks realized that his approach results in better shots.

I'm not a wildlife/nature photographer in any way, but I've learned that understanding and respecting your subject is far more important than the gear you're using.
 

ImagesWest

New to Mu-43
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
4
Yep... pretty much impossible to get a nice shallow DOF with m4/3...
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

S-Osolin

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
81
Yeah, I really don't like it that I need to close up to f8 to get some background. :frown:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

Bif

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
737
Location
San Angelo TX
Real Name
Bruce Foreman
Yep... pretty much impossible to get a nice shallow DOF with m4/3...
I disagree with this statement. Depth Of Field is a somewhat awkward label for what should be stated as "Zone of acceptable sharpness".

If all the factors that go into establishing that "zone" are properly managed, you'd be surprised at what can be accomplished with controlling that "zone of acceptable sharpness" no matter what format you use.

In the film days I did most of my work with medium format (Hasselblad, RB-67, Graflex XL, and some 4x5 view camera work), but also shot a lot of Kodachrome and Ektachrome 135,

I never had any difficulty getting the "zone of acceptable sharpness" pretty much the way I wanted it. I shoot mostly with m43 these days and have no problem getting what I want.
 

Robstar1963

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
3,093
Location
Isle of Wight England UK
Real Name
Robert (Rob)
One of the great things about the M43 system is that it is so versatile
You can get a greater depth of field if you want it for Macro work etc or you can get a shallow depth of field or at least very good subject isolation / differential focus when using appropriate products from the M43 range
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

The Grumpy Snapper

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
453
Depends on what I am shooting and how I want the final image to look. When I shot full frame I stopped down most times because the DoF was just to narrow, especially when getting close like I prefer. So have always been happy with what I get from m4/3 and I know I can get narrow when I want/need to.
That's how you can tell how few photo forum "experts" have actually used fast telephotos.
 

ImagesWest

New to Mu-43
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
4
I disagree with this statement. Depth Of Field is a somewhat awkward label for what should be stated as "Zone of acceptable sharpness".

If all the factors that go into establishing that "zone" are properly managed, you'd be surprised at what can be accomplished with controlling that "zone of acceptable sharpness" no matter what format you use.

In the film days I did most of my work with medium format (Hasselblad, RB-67, Graflex XL, and some 4x5 view camera work), but also shot a lot of Kodachrome and Ektachrome 135,

I never had any difficulty getting the "zone of acceptable sharpness" pretty much the way I wanted it. I shoot mostly with m43 these days and have no problem getting what I want.
You really didn't pick up the sarcasm in my post, did you... ;)
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom