1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

m43 vs apsc - DOF difference (Bokeh)

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by RamblinR, Mar 1, 2015.

  1. RamblinR

    RamblinR Mu-43 Top Veteran

    545
    Aug 16, 2012
    Sunshine Coast, Qld Australia
    Maria
    Everyone has posts showing the difference between FF and m43 yet I think a majority of people are considering a move from APSC more so than FF

    Does anyone have links to sites showing image comparisons between these to formats. Have searched but can't seem to find the comparisons I'm after. Same shot framed the same with the same f/stop. Want to see the difference between these two formats and not FF.

    Thanks
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2015
  2. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    Framing makes it a little hard. Do you want to crop the APS-c or the 43? Because the aspect ratio is quite different. The DOF is less so in my opinion.
     
  3. RamblinR

    RamblinR Mu-43 Top Veteran

    545
    Aug 16, 2012
    Sunshine Coast, Qld Australia
    Maria
    I was concerned about the m43 aspect ratio when I first swapped over but then I realised that if someone prints something they generally print 5x7 or 8x10.
    I find the m43 aspect ratio actually lends itself to these crops much better than the 2:3 ratio.
     
  4. RamblinR

    RamblinR Mu-43 Top Veteran

    545
    Aug 16, 2012
    Sunshine Coast, Qld Australia
    Maria
  5. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    Nice read, and thanks for posting. There is much more to a camera, than just high ISO, sharpness, etc. Lenses are huge, but again, this is also something that m43 offers. It's a good platform!
     
  6. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    It's easy to do your own. The difference is about 2/3 of a stop. Take a picture of something at F2 and then f2.5 and compare the difference.

    As someone who just went from APS-C to 4/3, I will say it is noticeable in side-by-side photos created to intentionally show the difference. In real life, not so much, because things like background, distance to subject and background, lighting, lens rendering will have much more influence than the tiny difference in sensor size.

    One more thing is that all the fast m4/3 primes I've used are 100% usable and sharp wide open. None of my APS-C primes faster than f2.8 were. If I have to stop down my APS-C f1.8 lens to f2.5 in order to get it to be as sharp as my m4/3 lens is wide open at f1.8, then I actually have it better on 4/3.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. ean10775

    ean10775 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 31, 2011
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Eric
    This is a really good point and not something that I considered. I've always preferred the 3:2 ratio for images viewed on a screen, but when it comes to making prints, I do find it easier to get better prints with regard to getting pleasing crops if starting with a 4:3 file. I also find the 4:3 format preferable for portraits (in portrait orientation), both on screen and in print.
     
  8. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Pros and Cons on the aspect ratio. The 4:3 ratio is less wide than 3:2. This means it is easier to crop to typical portrait frames, but it also means less horizontal FOV for landscapes and the like and very heavy cropping for 16x9 video.
     
  9. RamblinR

    RamblinR Mu-43 Top Veteran

    545
    Aug 16, 2012
    Sunshine Coast, Qld Australia
    Maria
    Yes, I'm thinking its more 2/3 of a stop compared to the Canon (1.6 crop) that I came from.

    If you look at the image in the article I posted above (the ceramic jar) there is another thing that people don't mention often and it is the compression that occurs from the focal length of the lens when doing these comparisons. In this comparison they are using 25mm f1.4 (m43), 35mm f1.4 (APSC) and 55mm f1.8 (FF). Look closely at the background, not at the bokeh but how much closer the background has been drawn to the object in focus. This compression is something that also affects the creaminess of the bokeh and something only achievable using FF due to the focal length of the lens used.
     
  10. Compression (as a type of perspective distortion) is related to the angle-of-view provided by a lens and sensor rather than focal length, but as a background object becomes more out-of-focus with a shallower depth-of-field, it will appear larger because its edges blur and expand.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    It is exactly 2/3 of a stop vs Canon APS-C. About 3/4 a stop on 1.5x crop APS-C.


    That's a common misconception. As Luckypenguin said above, perspective (and the compression associated with it) are 100% functions of distance to subject. With the same framing, those lenses used on different formats will give identical perspective because they are used from the same distance (Assuming test was controlled properly)

    The longer focal lengths from larger sensors do mean a larger aperture size. Since aperture size = focal length divided by f-stop. So a 50mm f1.4 lens on FF has twice the diameter of a 25mm f1.4 on 4/3. The larger diameter of the aperture means the blur discs are twice as large, too. Hence, double the blur at same aperture and EFL.
     
  12. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator; Photon Wrangler

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    Barry
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)