Image courtesy by Niels (Click on pictures to enlarge the size)
–
Editor’s note: After four years of existence I decided to finally create some space for all MFT camera ownsers. You can now write articles for 43rumors by submitting them at 43rumors@gmail.com. This is the first article of the new series written by 43rumors reader Niles (myfashioninspiration.creatorsofdesire.com).
—-
Niels:
I’ve been using MFT since the moment I started photography a couple of years ago (first an Olympus E-PL1, now a Panasonic GH2). Primarily to make fashion photos and videos of my girlfriend for her fashion blog. In this streetstyle/fashion world there is one dominant style of photography: fast lenses wide open to make the subject really pop out of the street.
To push this style to the max a lot of fashion bloggers use a full frame camera and I had set my mind on getting one myself until I had a chance to borrow a Canon 5D mkIII for a couple of days and did some comparing. The results of this comparison were actually surprising to me.
Because, like a lot of bloggers, I only really use the photos for web and never print, I decided to make the comparison as practical as possible and non scientific. I put down a tripod, took a shot with my Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 (wide open) on the GH2, then the same shot with the Canon 50mm f1.2L wide open on the 5D mkIII and then scaled both images down to the resolution I use on the web. I kept the images as raw as possible and only made slight color changes to make them match better.
There is a difference in depth of field noticeable but it really did make me think again if it was worth the extra thousands of euros. There are some obvious advantages to an expensive camera like the mkIII, the auto focus of the f1.2L was a welcome feature for photography compared to my Voigtlander, the low light quality was great and in full resolution the sharpness and details were noticeable but I also came home with a sore wrist after walking around with the mkIII in my hand for a day where as the GH2 is relatively light weight and compact. And scaled down to a web resolution the images start looking alike more and more.
I decided to stick with MFT for the time being. I’m also curious to see what effects Speedbooster solutions could have on the depth of field. But to the millions of fashion bloggers out there who feel they can only make blog photos with a full frame camera: a mirrorless camera with a fast lens might just do the trick for you for a fraction of the price and weight.
If you’re curious for more MFT fashion material: last year I made this short film on the GH2 using the Voigtlander 25mm f0.95, the SLRmagic Hyperprime 12mm f1.6 and a vintage OM lens: https://vimeo.com/54944767
Kind regards and thanks for the great blog!
Niels
—
Editors’s note: Some topics I am interested in:
– Professional on field reviews. Unlike DxO or Dpreview what I want is to learn more about the real life use of cameras and lenses! No charts or pixel peeping needed 🙂
– Testing of little known lenses
– Funny stories around the use of MFT
– System comparison: Example, switching from DSLR to MFT system
114 Responses
there should be a short film called “The Dutch Boyfriend”
Maybe telling Niels’ side of the story and it can be done in the same fashion as hers…
His girlfriend looks like a man.
@Andrew…not your real name me thinks
post a link to a picture of your girlfriend then we can do comparisons, critique, marks out of ten… or you could just stop being a biatch.
Thanks!
At least that person is the same species and not a horse.
People here now know how rude you are.
Welcome to the world of Internet forums. Nothing exceptional here..
Perhaps you got used to rude comments from rude people. Not me. As far as it concerns amalric, I ignore his rude and racist comments. The day he will exagerate with his twisted and racist “sense of humour” I’ll leave. Admin does a great job running up this site, but few persons can ruin his work easily.
I hear you. But it will be hard to find better elsewhere.
People are talking to a computer screen, not to a live person. And its unfortunately the same on other forums. To anyone lacking social filters, its a bad recipe…
I wouldn’t place all the focus on Amalric. Sure he could use a bit of step back on a few occasions, but its not as if he was the only one.. I mean, I remember when I started using m43, I though I’d never pay more than $400 for a lens. Altho I never exactly called anyone noob for paying $1000+ for a prime, nor did I ever see the difference over web images, It did tickle my mind. I don’t agree his reactions, but I understand where he comes from. Again, speaking of him, I don’t think I’ve ever been that ignorant about USA, but I visited Europe several times before deciding to go there for a 1st time. Boston. I can safely say I wonder why I waited so long. But at least I kept some of the worse stereotypes to myself. I understand. Very misplaced, but I understand.
What was it again? Lack of filter because of Internet, where simple mental worries can be turned into scud missiles: a troll born every minutes. Don’t worry about Amalric nor about 43rumors.com, whenever and where ever you browse, you will find someone 😀
The internet protects nerds from getting beaten up, you and Marco should be grateful for that.
I had my shares of rude comments, on other forums, mostly in the past. Not that I am proud of that.. But I guess it helps me not being all that annoyed.
Marco:
First of all excuseme for my English (my language is Spanish, i am from Colombia) I had seen your work, read your comments and I have an general idea of who are you. The same with others than post here in 43 rumors. I enjoy the photography since i was a teen, I had my small lab and my cameras. I recognize that is very interesting and useful many of the publications in this blog. There are other that are here without the intention of share their knowledge and experience. I ignore them. But i will miss if you and the other ones who love photography, and the m43 gear, quit for trolls and people with senseless comments.
Don’t worry in a community we can also select what to read and what to ignore.
LOL -well said! Him and Almaric are two peas in a pod LOL!
At least I don’t write offending comments, I don’t act as a racist and I don’t call other people names.
That’s very goody of you, your mom must be very proud.
Bollox don’t ‘ave any. Still
Oh petal, your mummy must be very proud.
My mother passed away.
Sorry to hear that. That’s one reason I always believe a person’s family should be off limit in a heated argument.
Judging by the masculine pose and the bulge, this is is clearly a woman.
@Going Blind
is there any website you don’t childlessly troll?
Dear All….Please forgive Andrew….Some people just have problem visualizing the difference.
Dear All….Please forgive Andrew….Some people just have problem visualizing the difference.
Andrew – Shows your little your brain and other parts are if this is the only comment you can come up with.
buy a similar focal length MFT-lens, eg the lovely 45/1,8 (bought mine @ OlyPlayground for ~200€) for a fraction of money and you get the same DOF. So you can save your bucks to get one bouquet the week for your girlfriend 🙂
I was just gonna say that getting a 75mm f1.8 would give an similar DOF as the 50 f1.2 on 5DIII. You’d have to step bak a bit more, but it comes with autofocus and is probably much sharper than the L lens shooting wide open. It would be a formidable addition to your 25mm f0.95.
Spot on. I was going to suggest to Niels that using the 75/1.8 was they way to go if he wanted ‘pop’ on M4/3. The longer the focal length, the shallower the depth of field.
The subject matter was intended as a joke, but here’s what you can do with an old manual focus 180/2: http://i1351.photobucket.com/albums/p794/An0nemu5/dc3_zps551de8a8.jpg
But you can also go upwards with the focal length on the FF side… If you shoot this Picture with the 1.8/75 on MFT it looks different. But if you choose the 2/135L for the Canon it looks different too!
If you compare comparable lenses the bigger sensor always wins in terms of short DOF. Why ist medium Format still attractive to Fashion? It costs much more then Canon FF, but gives even more selection from the background.
Of course you can. My comment wasn’t intended to imply M4/3 vs larger format, it was simply intended to suggest that you can get shallow depth of field with M4/3 with large aperture longer focal lengths.
You can’t isolate DOF from the rest of the equation (framing, perspective, working distance). A 75/1.8(150mm equiv) creates a much different photo than a 50mm on FF. You would get a much more compressed perspective.
So no, its not really a valid option. Sure, for head shots 150mm is a workable FL, but often not what you would want for full body/environmental portraits, where you generally want a 35/1.4 or 50/1.4/1.2/etc.
If you want DOF like a FF camera on M43, your only choice is to use extremely fast lenses, anything else is a total apples to oranges comparison. Choosing a different focal length means taking an entirely different photo so any comparison is moot.
+1
I have no issues with the DOF I get from m4/3’s in the telephoto ranges, but DOF control from 50mm equivalent and below is a bit lacking. It’s not a deal breaker by any means, but I’d be lying if I said I don’t miss the look a classing 35mm lens gives you. Full body shots taken with a full frame 35mm f/2 have an almost 3D appearance. My Olympus 17mm/1.8 as well as the Panny 20mm just can’t recreate that look. Perhaps the Voigt 17.5mm f/.95 can better match full frame, but I’m not about to buy such a large manual focus prime for $1100. Plus, I’d have to use it with ND filters most time to keep from bumping up against the shutter limit.
But, that’s a trade off I’m will to accept for small size…for now, when the full frame NEX makes an appearance then I will have to reevaluate.
The article talks about why m4/3 is so much more compact and still offered more than competent results with an affordable package. Going the other way to a medium format just defeats the whole purpose. We all know what bigger sensors can do, but in many ways, bigger isn’t better. Bigger is just that, bigger.
“”It costs much more then Canon FF, but gives even more selection from the background.””
That isn’t necessarily the case as there are very few fast MF lenses combine this with the crop factor,as most MF sensors are not the same size as their Film ancestors again reducing the advantage further. Then there is the huge jump in prices
http://d2f29brjr0xbt3.cloudfront.net/833_digimediumformat/sensors.jpg
Since we are at it, it will be interesting to see the up coming tele prime from Panasonic, once its out..
Yeah, I am very excited to see the Panasonic 42/1.2 and how it compares to my Sigma 85/1.4 on FF. A couple more 1.2 or faster AF primes and I would seriously consider selling all of my FF gear in favor of a lighter M43 kit.
I was thinking about the 150mm, but I am very looking forward to see what the 1.2/42.5 is made of, make no mistakes!
The interessting thing is, that 95% of the photographers watch their pics on a screen….
Yes. Printing photos in good quality and size is quite expensive.
And you need a place where to put them.
I stored them all, no space here 🙁
I was asked for a small exibition, I’ll have to print my photos and then find a place where to properly store them. If I’ll sell them, there won’t be any problem! :p
Which ones? Who wants them? Links plz.
Really? Links please, make us laugh.
Is that exhibition called ‘Chicks with Dicks’?
Really? Show us, I need a laugh.
Bollox don’t ‘ave any. Aint no brains neither.
Well yeah, i didn’t invest in a really good one for nothing. Watching on a screen is fine, at least it can be, but what surprises me is how many people cheap out on a monitor to do it. It’s like getting the very best camera in the world and then asking a kid to draw out a few of your best shots in charcoal by chimping at the lcd.
Been doing photography a bit longer than Niels.
I was amazed at the difference in bokeh when I first used a Nikon D3. The image from the FF camera looked great compared with APSC.
This year, I’m using a D800. There’s a world of difference with a D5100 (16mp APSC).
To my eye, there’s a clear difference between the GH2 and 5D images, even at such a small size. Print big (> 24×36) and you will appreciate the difference.
It does not take any experience in photography to see the diffference in dof rendering here.
Apparently, it does for some people.
i think some just look at general IQ, in which case you wont see any difference at display resolutions. There are some who experience the gain in shallow dof in the 24×36 sample as disturbing. We prob just see what we want to see? 😉
Frankly, I think the shallow dof thing is a fad. Its popularity has shifted over time, and will pass again. Some eras prefer dreaminess and isolation; some eras prefer grittiness and sense of place.
I like shallow DOF when it is used well, but not when it is done indiscriminately just for “the look”. People also often use it to hide bad composition or inconvenient background, or when using a longer lens would have been better. Annie Liebovitz, for instance, makes great use of wide DOF in fashion shots and portraits; she doesn’t use larger formats for the DOF, but for the resolution and tonality.
wide dof portraits, fashion style or not can be great when they are environmental type.Ofcourse every style has it peaks of being trendy, nothing wrong with that. But it can be part of the way you see things, so it could be a permanent part of visualizing. Look at studioshootings where a habit exist to shoot with very wide dof, even when not needed, you dont hear alot about that. With digital photography giving much higher isos possible then before, the fast lenses priority shifting from lowlight to shallow dof style, becoming more popular because much more people getting into shooting. But it has alwasy been there, starting with the large format plate cameras.As much as people can call this shallowness craze we can also name alot of other styles “f8 and be there” incorrectly.
Nicely put. 🙂
I’ve always thought that Micro Four Thirds and Four Thirds bokeh more pleasing to the eye, it renders better, feels more natural and is less distracting…
The highlights in the 5D picture are distracting. Pull the exposure on the cars and the wall (on the left) and the background will fade away.
To my eye, the background of the GH2 picture looks hard and distracting.
The one thing the picture comparison shows clearly, is the superior subject isolation advantage of the 24×36 sensor.
Exactly. Especially considering that a special manual focus lens had to be used on the MFT camera. With the “best” available original manufacturer lens (Pana 25/1.4), the difference would even be larger.
wouldn’t really call it superior, this kind of bokeh (water colur mush) is often distracting, over the top and look terrible in print…just my opionion (but have been told similar by clients).
bokeh is indeed a matter of taste, but i was talking about the ability to isolate the subject.
The cannon gives much better isolation however I have no great love of the Bokeh (mush in this case) of either camera/lens. In the m43 picture the cars are distracting from the strong and confident fashionista.
The manual lens did not have to be used. You can get very similar results with 45mm/f1.8 or 75mm/f1.8. And the model will look better.
ofcourse the mft format benefits from a longer fl like the ones you mentioned, but the author did the correct comparison by using lenses with simlar field of view. And there is nothing fake or over the top as its the way the lens and sensor combo renders.
I think it looks fake. I don’t like that DOF at all and it looks similar to me doing it in software too heavily (blurring out backgrounds that is). If you like it though, no contest; as if we didn’t know that.
advantage of the sensor or lens? (both combined ofcourse…)
50mm 1.2 L isn’t exactly kit lens at a whopping 1600$
Neither is the voigtlander.
Anyway, a $200 50mm 1.8 lens would give less CA and still have better defocus characteristic than M43.
Dear anonymous. If you had not noticed the Voightlander shot is vastly superior to the Canon shot. Including canon exposure not being correct. The CV OOF is vastly superior and the subject contrast and depth is also vastly superior. Just look closely, visually, at the creases in the jeans and the points in the face. The canon is flatter on a shallower dof (exposure?). The canon looses this round by a long long way. Even if printed at A3.
The other thing the photos clearly show is that Niels’ girlfriend looks like a man.
She is not the subject of the discussion. You can make women look masculine vice versa. This is clearly a masculine pose. Not for me, but no need to get ad hominem.
Jorgen, I would never write anything like that above. Obviously the troll copied my name. @admin I stop leaving comments until this thing is fixed. Keep up the good work!
@MarcoSartoriPhoto
best thing is to sign up at https://gravatar.com/ and use that email here when posting (no need to login) handy for stopping imposters 🙂
Trying now.. Let’s see.
For web and dilettante shots like those, even M43 is wasted. Thanks Niels for discovering hot water.
Bottom line: If you only make photos for web presentations, i.e. only a few hundred pixels wide, you do not really need a full frame camera. Well. Not exactly a ground breaking news.
The man wrote a nice little article and submitted it. Good on him. Criticism should be directed to the content and not his girlfriend (if that’s who it is) or whether he’s stating something the ‘experts’ here already read somewhere else.
I found it interesting – even if it was for the opposite reason to what was intended.
I’ve been into photography for thirty-odd years and have been using MFT since it came out (E-P1, OM-D and 6 lenses) but I have never used a full-frame digital camera. I was amazed how much better the separation in pic from the Canon was! So today I learned something, thanks Niels.
note to admin,
” Editor’s note: After four years of existence I decided to finally create some space for all MFT camera ownsers. You can now write articles for 43rumors by submitting them at 43rumors@gmail.com.”
could these article go in a new main category “articles” rather than reviews?
much more chromatic aberration on the canon…. look at the head contour…
I think this is an interesting direction for this site and I’d like to see more of it.
I’d like to see some more info on the SLRMagic 25mm 0.95T and comparisons with this lens.
Maybe any interesting accessories people have tried as well.
+1000
I am waiting keenly for a proper review of the SLR 25 0.95 or comparison with the Voigtländer!
25mm is not for people photography!!! Wrong lens on both cameras!!
thats up to each photographer and the way he/she prefers to render a person in a shot dont you think?
not people, fashion… didn’t you read?? show yours… then we can criticize…
50mm equiv is not ideal for tight portraits, but is more than useable. For full length shots like this it’s absolutely fine.
If you were using the 75mm 1.8 you’d have to be standing a long way away from your subject for this framing and would find it difficult to maintain any sort of connection with your subject.
Only if you lack imagination and creativity.
Lots of full length fashion are shot on 35mm equivalent. Fashion and people portrait aren’t the same.
The gh2 picture looks flat and lifeless.
I hate to say this but both images look false, the Canon more so, they both have a very photoshop look about them, of the girl photograph being overlayed on a street scene, neither are particularly appealing to me.
Eh?
That’s just the look you get. It’s a product of the wide aperture and the camera to subject distance. It’s not a product of Photoshop.
“It’s a product of the wide aperture and the camera to subject distance.”
It’s a product of a poor composition skills of the shooter. Please, do not blame the gear.
A good workman doesn’t blame a tool. So I cannot blame you for your comments.
The 5D Mark III looks so much better, color, bokeh it just looks more something magazine worthy, whereas the GH2 looks ok! FYI i have both cameras! And for those going on about 75mm where do you want him to stand across the street!
I have a 5D +50 and 85mm f1.4’s and a G1+25mm f0.95.
MFT at 25mm and f0.95 wont give the same DoF as a 5D+50mm at f1.4 but if thin DoF is your main aim all you need to do is use a longer lens and alter your framing or step closer with the 25mm and voila… thin DoF.
It’ll be a different image with different framing, but so what?
ofcourse its easy to just go nearer to the subject to get the out of focus effect.
But if you do a modelshoot, you want both close,half body or full figure shots(at least thats what i always do). With 25 its hard to get full figure shots with a nice oof background. The trick here is find better suited backgrounds or just very distant back settings.
another trick is to let the model use a more compact pose, like kneeling. This way you get closer to the subject and thereby enhancing the oof effect of the background.
Actually, in this particular case, I would have preferred the 5D3. The AF is easily worth the extra money.
The m43’s MF lenses are such a throwback, that it is even not funny, really.
Though, if the people are really scale it for the web, one could try for example 45mm and a close-up filter. Heck, for web resolutions, one can try a lot of of stuff, without any visible impact on IQ.
P.S. Oh. I finally see what for people use the 50mm eq length. Keep posting!!
Thanks for the comparison. further proves my belief that MFT isn’t ready for prime time.
If you think m43 isn’t ready for prime time because of insufficiently thin DOF, then I’d say it never will be. Sensor won’t change size, and lenses can’t get much faster than f0.95.
You can now start saving for your FF setup.
hmm thats a very narrow minded claim, maybe you know that many people dont care about narrow dof. For the ones who cares and want to get the max possible, there is always the option nowadays to get a focal lenght reducer and use fast legacy lenses in order to make the dof thinner another stop. How to use it in photography is as always a matter of taste. But i am a confessed “wide open” photographer 90% of the time, and I can live with the m43 format. If I was a studio photographer, i would see no sense in the switch I did. But for outdoor and always have with you, a mirrorless compact is ideal.
Have people always been so obsessed with dof bokeh in photography, or is it just a recent thing in the digital world? To me the picture on the right looks odd in that the subject appears to be floating over the background, on the right as well but not so extreme.
“Have people always been so obsessed with dof bokeh in photography, or is it just a recent thing in the digital world?”
It’s a thing of the digital age: more people have access to photography, than in the film times.
To shoot with the film, one had to learn the processes, learn the tricks and gotchas – along with that one was also picking up lighting technics and composition.(*) With digital, many users do not even bother to read the manual.
But then, it is somewhat liberating to get a extremely bright lens and 135 format camera – and stop bothering about the lighting and composition: fix lighting during RAW development, lessen the need for composition by removing the background entirely.
(*) No personal experience. But as a kid, in the early 80s, watched enough my older sister learn how to shoot with a film camera. Still have her first photography book.
This little comparison is actually a good representation for how our largely ‘seen on a acreen’ world encourages ultra-shallow depth of field.
If you were to ask me which photo I liked better when viewed (scaled down) as presented in this 43rumors post, I’d pick the Canon image. However, when you click on each photo to view the larger size image, I prefer the Panasonic image.
Just goes to show how important viewing size is to perceived depth of field.
There’s no use in comparing m43 sensor against a full frame sensor. Naturally, the Canon will have superior shallow depth of field and sharpness. For professional work, it is more safe to stick to using full frame pro gear. m43 in the hands of a skilled pro can produce professional looking photos too, but it’s just safer to stick to pro gear in a pro environment.
@”MarcoSux” my mother passed away. @bart don’t know yet, I was asked through a journalist, I don’t know if I can choose from pictures I already have taken or if it will be a project. September seems the month.
Cool Marco, give an update to admin the moment its going to happen, always interested in your activities, even if such expo is still too far from me.
What? I understand you guys are sad, but not the rest of the “English”.
Marco, don’t worry…we know who are you…and who aren’t you…. I like your work
btw that short film was nicely done.
Yes m43 sucks in low light
The Voigtlander is showing vast superiority here on these two shots. Yes, there seems to be more isolation on the main subject but it looks cut and paste in PP not dof. Though it is not. The Voigtlander looks more real, the dof is deeper but the background is vastly superior AND the contrast in the subject gives far better local depth (look at the creases in the jeans) the subject has depth not flat on the OOF background (maybe canon exposure not so good).
Do the one eye trick! Close one eye and look at the shots (one at a time) very close (100mm or less, depends on your screen and what size the image is) and then move back slowly and get the real 3d image, once you are in the zone the image will pop out at you. The OOF on the Voigtlander leaves the canon dead.
Go on try it. Also use the same method to look at shots to see the real shot initially. Then go to the longer one. There is actually a formulae that tells one the original focal length over format for this but its burried in my old old old stuff on another backup that is so old probably nothing can open it.
Jim your comment about the dof rendering of the canon sounds like you only have seen mft photos, which surprises me.
Ulli, I am commenting on the shots as shown. On what I see the Voigtlander is, here, giving a better rendition. Though the exposure seems wrong on the canon, its flat. The DOF is shallower on the canon, but the DOF is better on the Voigtlander. Again on these shots, the Voigtlander is vastly superior when only looking at the main subject. As I said, on the canon it looks like a PP cut and paste from some where else.
If you just said you preferred the looks of the left picture i can understand it, but saying it has better rendition, better DOF and vastly superior, makes it sound like a non-subjective opinion. That PP cut and paste description you give to the canon is one of the main advantages of the bigger sensors. I have done modelshots with the same OOF look or even more extreme then the sample at the right when i was still using a canon 1ds (with a 85mm f/1.2) as do many 24×36 users. I can understand that there are people who dont like the extreme shallow dof, but to say it looks less natural then the nokton is funny, as you know that our eyes dont have the ability to isolate a subject from the background, so that would make the voigtlaender unnatural also.
OK make it a preference. But I can still say why I have the preference. That is, the canon still looks flat, and the Voigtlander OOF is better, helping for better rendition down the street. But thats me.
There seem to be a lot of trolls who know that the Voigtlander shot is superior so they must cloud the issue.
Poor people. It is not always so, but in this case it is. It’s good to see that you do see superiority on an individual level. Misplaced as your thoughts are on most occasions.