3 ms·
>very hard to get nice depth / bokeh F1.2 lenses are quite widely available for micro 4/3 systems, which is equivalent to f2.4 on full frame in terms of depth
by foldr 3y ago
>very hard to get nice depth / bokeh
F1.2 lenses are quite widely available for micro 4/3 systems, which is equivalent to f2.4 on full frame in terms of depth of field. Not enough to get you absolutely razor thin depth of field, but perfectly sufficient to blur the background.
- semi-extrinsic 3y agoI have an old manual Nikon 50mm F1.2 with adapter on my E-M5. If you shoot portraits, you run into the "your eyes are in focus but not the tip of your nose" problem. Surely you don't need any shallower DoF than that.
- jeffbee 3y agoF-mount lenses with a speed booster on a micro four thirds body is a seriously underrated setup.
- ricardobeat 3y agoThat's 100mm/f2.4 equivalent, of course you get razor thin DoF - even on a 100mm/f4 that's a handful cm at portrait distances. Maybe I shouldn't have said 'hard to get', cause you certainly can get decent DoF like that, but it's a real physical limitation. You won't get it that easily with classic 28mm/35mm/50mm focal lengths. And there will never be a practical f0.6 lens.
- ricardobeat 3y agoThat wasn't the case for a long time, and good lenses are extremely expensive, in the 1000+ euro range. Laowa / 7Artisans etc were not a thing until a few years ago. Plus bokeh quality is subjective and not just about blurring the background. Not saying you can't enjoy an MFT system. My 20mm/1.7 Lumix took great pictures. Truth is the original premise has not held. The best MFT setups are just as heavy as APS-C while having slightly worse specs due to the smaller sensor, and at the same time a higher price tag. These are very real limitations and much more than "dismissed by armchair photographers in the early years".