I generally pose my subjects more straight on when shooting this shallow, as even a slight angle could leave an eye out of focus. You could use Canon’s 85mm f1.2 L and shoot wide open to generate more background blur, but you could also miss focus sometimes. Seasoned photographers get this, and may scoff at this comparison because of the disparity in focal length, but I’m just illustrating that the lower aperture number does not mean necessarily mean more background blur. If you make the comparison on one of Canon’s many APS-C cameras, the difference would be much more drastic.
FULL FRAME SENSOR SIZE VERSUS FOUR THIRDS FULL
Despite the Olympus having an equivalent DoF of f3.6, it can still produce more background blur than the Canon 24mm f1.4 on a full frame camera. With background blur, you must consider focal length and distance of the subject from the background. And that isn’t quite the case, with help from, you can see that the Olympus 75mm f1.8 produces much more background blur than Canon’s popular 24mm f1.4 on a full frame camera at when the subject is more than 2 meters from the background: Background Blur Comparison: Olympus 75mm f1.8 vs Canon 24mm f1.4 Many people think that the lower the aperture number = more background blur. I say it depends on your definition of “creamy bokeh.” “So you’re saying if I wanted that creamy bokeh for portraiture, Micro Four Thirds can’t match what a Full Frame camera can do?” f1.4 is always f1.4 in terms of gathering light). Olympus 75mm f1.8 would be equivalent to 150mm f1.8 on full frame, f3.6 equivalence in Depth of Field.ĭouble the focal length, double the aperture for DoF, but it’s important to note that the exposure is always the same (ie.
Panasonic-Leica 42.5mm f1.2 would be equivalent to 85mm f1.2 on full frame, f2.4 equivalence in Depth of Field.Panasonic-Leica 25mm f1.4 would be equivalent to 50mm f1.4 on full frame, f2.8 equivalence in Depth of Field (DoF).For Micro Four Thirds lenses, that would mean: This is because a full frame sensor is about four times larger in total surface area, and measured diagonally from corner-to-corner of the sensor it’s twice as long as a MFT sensor resulting in a 2x crop factor. If you’re new to Micro Four Thirds, you’ll be hearing the term “full frame equivalent” or “35mm equivalent” a lot. In terms of field of view and depth of field, yes, but F1.8 is always F1.8 in terms of bringing in light. Let’s start with the most popular misconception of the Micro Four Thirds system: Full Frame vs Micro Four Thirds Bokeh / Depth of Field “Your 45mm F1.8 45mm lens is really a 90mm F3.6 in the Full Frame world.” Photographers Who Made the Switch from Full Frame to m43 and why.Here are some of things we will cover below:
FULL FRAME SENSOR SIZE VERSUS FOUR THIRDS UPDATE
This post is meant to be the definitive guide to answer all questions about Micro Four Thirds vs Full Frame, if I miss anything at all please let me know in the comments and I will update the post accordingly.
Since then there have been numerous questions, and many misconceptions about ♔3 vs Full Frame (and other crop sensor) cameras.Ģ023 Update: Just wanted to provide a quick update that yes, I still indeed use both Micro Four Thirds and Full Frame cameras! I’m comfortable with recommending either, it really just depends on personal preference and use case. I was an early adopter for Micro Four Thirds, starting with the Panasonic GF1 in 2009.
0 kommentar(er)
