It is a perfectly lovely portrait and no doubt much better than I could
do or even have imagined. But I do wish you would refrain from claiming
that I said 4/3 format is lousy for portraits and that a photo such as
yours is impossible. I never said any such thing but did say that
getting a shallow depth of field was more difficult than full-frame.
The thing that raised the question in the first place was an upper body
shot at 50mm from 10 feet and a head/shoulders shot at 50mm from 5 feet.
I was complaining that neither of the 4 *native* lenses I own have
either the appropriate focal length or a sufficiently large aperture to
do shallow depth of field at those distances. I also own four 50mm OMZs
but it was my choice not to use manual lenses. You've chosen a clever
way to defeat a problem but you've chosen to solve a different problem
that doesn't meet my original requirement.
Jim says: "It's all in one's choice of the lens. The sensor size really
plays very little part in this." Well, the sensor size plays a very
large part in this. It dictates a focal length only 1/2 that for
full-frame for a given angle of coverage which, in turn, dictates a
2-stop larger aperture for a given depth of field. I don't have those
2-stop larger apertures other than my old Zuikos.
Chuck Norcutt
On 4/12/2015 10:55 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
Chuck,
Here is an example of why you can't use 4/3 for portraiture. You just
can't get a narrow DoF.
http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=506&Itemid=1
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|