The obsession with bokeh blur is for people who can't compose in 3 dimensions properly and cover up their poor technique by just smudging everything else out of focus. As a action/sports photographer mostly I prefer to have more DOF to get moving subjects in focus.
It has its place, particularly for portraiture, but for landscapes being able to open up the lens to let more light in without sacrificing depth of field is a minor benefit (on top of the benefit that the camera and lens you've just carried 3000 feet up hill is relatively light). Of course, if you do want to take a quick portrait at the top on your mountain, you're screwed... But what's this? An Olympus 45mm f1.8! At barely larger than a 35mm film carton, why wouldn't you have it with you? At f1.8 it's less than a stop slower than a 50mm f1.4 nifty fifty on full frame, and has a better focal length for portraits. Of course, it's not quite as good for portraits as a 90mm f1.4 full frame lens, but who's carrying one of those around half-forgotten in a pocket?
@@markhoffman9655 It does feel like a trend. Bob Capa and Ansel Adams never really did the blur thing. It does feel like something particular to portraits too. I mostly do landscape, nature, and travel, which I think is more about the whole picture instead of bokeh. I dunno. My photography is more of an auxilary function to travel journalism anyway.
The blurred background is not a big problem for me, because by using the EM5 camera with a 40-150mm and also a 75-300mm lens, I can also get a good blurry background. What is important is that you know the technique. By the way, I enjoyed watching your video. Thanks for sharing. A big LIKE from me. Greetings from Singapore.
For those of us who have been around, there appears to be little understanding of what depth of field is and not only does the lens aperture and focal length effect it, but equally important is the distance between the subject and the background.
RUclips is great! There will always be a DOF discussion somewhere…”creamy bokeh”, “laziest way of background separation”, “nailing the focus”, “crop factor”, “aperture”, “same amount of light”, “different ISO performance”, “lens quality at max aperture”, “noise reduction in post”, “background separation in post”, …., “different tools”, “different tasks”
Just pulled the trigger on and old EM5 to use as a street and travel camera. Looking forward to trying out Olympus, I've never used one before, yet have heard so many good things.
Hello to be honest you will not go wrong with OM D 5 Mark 1 .My carry around in NYC is the Olympus D10 Mark 1. Yes ....I have FF Nikon Z models love them,but the OM D 5 , 10 even Mark 1 are a great little power houses. Remember the best camera you have is the one with you !!
Wonderful video! I agree wholeheartedly about the telephoto approach. For close-up nature photography, I regularly use the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro. Not only does it give me beautiful bokeh (even when stopped down), but the narrow angle of view allows me great control of the background, as I look for contrasts to further set off my subject.
I agree, who cares? Most people understand the differences between various formats. There are plenty of restrictions using FF and certainly larger formats that have to be considered, so surely it is ‘horses for courses’ isn’t it. Why some people feel they have to knock other formats is beyond me. I have cameras that use 4 different formats and my only interest when I use them is getting a good photograph!
It is the photo not the camera, although I love the EM 1 II, that matters. Camera manufactures need to sell cameras so tech becomes more important than ascetics. I second that if you want shallow depth of field the 75mm 1.8 is amazing.
Yes, - DO. It's same but different. And you get many fun functions and possibilities you don't get in other brands yet. It's a photographer's friend, even though the old menu system could be easier. You have the new menu system in the OM-1 only so far.
@ChrisBaitson Same here in Sweden. At least an hour north from here. I loved your video about background blur by the way, as I love most of your videos. I have learnt a lot from them about using filters and so on. Keep on your path.
I get plenty of blurry background with micro four thirds. More often than not I find myself wanting a deeper depth of field, not shallower. Bokeh is great, but not having enough of your subject in focus can ruin an otherwise good photo.
As part of the anti-Micro 4/3 gang, the "phoblographer " website openly says it wont review M43 cameras (or APS-C) because they are doomed. Personally have cut them off my subscribed sites list now and hopefully they will be doomed for their part in the Fool Frame bigotry.
Dang, I could see the mosquitos flying around you. Yikes! Totally agree with you about M43 myths that are still floating around. It's silly. A good photographer can get amazing images with full frame, APS-C or Micro Four-thirds cameras. Sure, they each have their strengths and weaknesses, but most modern cameras are capable of amazing photos. The idea that someone needs to lug around a expensive FF camera with larger lenses to take pro-level photographs is ridiculous.
Great content as usual. Seriously, how blurry does your background need to be? Here's a thought, get yourself a M4/3 kit and with the $$ you save on gear you can buy that super fancy AI editing software and bokeh the shit out of all your backgrounds. Then with all the extra space in your bag you can pack a lunch and a couple beers.
You should get that 75mm f1.8. Hands down the sharpest and bokeh lens m4/3rds has to offer. Fantastic video, sir. You do well putting commercialized creators to shame, trying to push more expensive products for the same results.
Chris, bothered by mosquitos. They do not like Citronella or Eucalyptus with Lemon, try using a few drops of essential oils on your skin if you are not allergic to any of them, it works for me.
I would say that this fact that MFT cannot rival full frame with same blurred background - we can blame then the FF with the fact they cannot have same blur on the background that MF gives, and cannot have same image correction as LF... So what??? We chose our equipment to the tasks we require - for me its a hobby - and I moving downwards digitally - from FF to APS-C and now thinking to get into MFT... And also shooting film in FF, MF and LF...
No, if you want to get a blurry background for portraits with a m4/3 camera, you use a 45mm f1.8 (Olympus, less than £150 second hand on MPB). That's less than a stop slower than a 50mm 1.4, and has a better focal length for portraits, and is faster than whatever zoom you might use to get a bit closer. Of course, it isn't as good as a Sony 85mm 1.4, but that's more like £800 second-hand, and for other reasons too is not a lens you'd just tuck into your bag in case you need it. In fact, wide aperture portraiture really isn't an issue for m4/3 at all. There are any number of f1.4 standard lenses in the 50-60mm range from classic SLRs that can cheaply bought and adapted, so a 100mm or 110mm f2.8 equivalent can be had for about £50. Of course, some of these older lenses were a bit soft at the edges... but we aren't using the edges, just the sharp centre.
I'm not sure it's the case that the depth of field of a f/1.8 lens on a M43 lens is the same as f/1.8 on full frame. I think there is a 2x effect on DoF as well as focal length. So depth of field wise f/1.8 on M43 is equivalent to f/2.5 on full frame. Of course that's going to give you plenty of blurry backgrounds.
Never had an issue with blurry backgrounds on M43 and use the f1,8 holy trinity. The 17mm is a bit wide but the 25 and 45 are great. Also had success with the plastic fantastic 40-150, just need plenty of light. I wonder what the 70-300 is like?
I really enjoy my 70-300mm. In good light, it works very well. When I go to the coast, I always take it and enjoy photographing the shore birds, and the many raptors near my home in the foothills of the mountains. I understand it’s capabilities, and I know it does not perform quite up to the level of the pro zooms, but I’ve been extremely happy with the results. The key things I remember is I need good light, and I don’t want to over-crop the image.
It is a myth. I was posting photos with nice blurry background at least 10 years ago with the Panasonic Leica DG 25mm f1.4. But in any case, if you want burry backgrounds just use the new feature in Lightroom (haha).
You can evaluate the blur power of a lens by simple math. Divide the focal length by the aperture. The 25mm f1.8 will give you a 13,8 the plastic fantastic will give you a 26,8 so you see that this lens will give you more blur. Now when it comes to full frame you have the benefit of higher focal length. I think there are some limitations when it comes to portrait photography. The 45mm pro has less blur then a 85mm f1.8 on full frame but often the customer/ person you take photos of will not notice. But technology interested photo nerds will notice....
It's easy to get a shallow depth of field if you're close to your subject with separation to the background. However in the more usual distance for portraits it's going to be more difficult get that background blur with mft than full frame. I own mft, apsc and full frame and like them all but why buy a mft camera if you primarily shoot portraits?
Well of course, but equally, why if you primarily shoot portraits are you using 35mm "full frame" rather than a medium format camera? And now we're back to the 1980s with the camera club bores with their Hasselblads and Mamiyas looking down on the 35mm folk. Sure, if you want to shoot mostly portraits, use a 35mm sensor and a 90mm portrait lens. But if you mostly shoot landscapes and nature, there are huge advantages to having a smaller camera, and you can still pick up a tiny second-hand 45mm portrait lens for about £150, or use an adaptor to mount a manual-focus 50mm 1.4 with a bit of character for even less.
Disregard Ken's assertions. Despite his self-proclaimed professional status, his unorthodox methods and perspectives, such as favouring JPEGs (even from smartphones), dismissing digital RAW (some quotes from his website: "Raw is very popular for people shooting landscapes with digital cameras, which is not what digital cameras are for.", "Raw is designed for people who intend to spend a lot of time twiddling with one image at a time.", "Raw is also for people who don't yet get perfect exposure right when they make the image, although of course JPEGs also allow these adjustments."), and excessively sharpening and saturating his images, suggest that his viewpoints should be viewed VERY skeptically.
Ken really thinks that he knows everything about cameras, lenses and photography, just ask him! He is the most over rated, self loving smartazz on RUclips! His predictions are always wrong. I just quit watching him. I wish he would go back to Russia!
That running from the mosquitos was so recognizable! 😅
Not sure why background blur is such a big deal for everyone. Reminds me of high school photography galleries.
The obsession with bokeh blur is for people who can't compose in 3 dimensions properly and cover up their poor technique by just smudging everything else out of focus. As a action/sports photographer mostly I prefer to have more DOF to get moving subjects in focus.
It has its place, particularly for portraiture, but for landscapes being able to open up the lens to let more light in without sacrificing depth of field is a minor benefit (on top of the benefit that the camera and lens you've just carried 3000 feet up hill is relatively light).
Of course, if you do want to take a quick portrait at the top on your mountain, you're screwed... But what's this? An Olympus 45mm f1.8! At barely larger than a 35mm film carton, why wouldn't you have it with you? At f1.8 it's less than a stop slower than a 50mm f1.4 nifty fifty on full frame, and has a better focal length for portraits. Of course, it's not quite as good for portraits as a 90mm f1.4 full frame lens, but who's carrying one of those around half-forgotten in a pocket?
I love my tonyha! Unless of course I have a worth background to just soften it up a little.
@@markhoffman9655 It does feel like a trend. Bob Capa and Ansel Adams never really did the blur thing. It does feel like something particular to portraits too. I mostly do landscape, nature, and travel, which I think is more about the whole picture instead of bokeh. I dunno. My photography is more of an auxilary function to travel journalism anyway.
The blurred background is not a big problem for me, because by using the EM5 camera with a 40-150mm and also a 75-300mm lens, I can also get a good blurry background. What is important is that you know the technique. By the way, I enjoyed watching your video. Thanks for sharing. A big LIKE from me. Greetings from Singapore.
For those of us who have been around, there appears to be little understanding of what depth of field is and not only does the lens aperture and focal length effect it, but equally important is the distance between the subject and the background.
If you have a Zuiko 40-150 f2.8 Pro then you focus down to .5m and that really throws the background out of focus!
RUclips is great! There will always be a DOF discussion somewhere…”creamy bokeh”, “laziest way of background separation”, “nailing the focus”, “crop factor”, “aperture”, “same amount of light”, “different ISO performance”, “lens quality at max aperture”, “noise reduction in post”, “background separation in post”, …., “different tools”, “different tasks”
Ah there was something new: “mosquitos love MFT shooters”😂
Just pulled the trigger on and old EM5 to use as a street and travel camera. Looking forward to trying out Olympus, I've never used one before, yet have heard so many good things.
Hello to be honest you will not go wrong with OM D 5 Mark 1 .My carry around in NYC is the Olympus D10 Mark 1.
Yes ....I have FF Nikon Z models love them,but the OM D 5 , 10 even Mark 1 are a great little power houses.
Remember the best camera you have is the one with you !!
Wonderful video! I agree wholeheartedly about the telephoto approach. For close-up nature photography, I regularly use the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro. Not only does it give me beautiful bokeh (even when stopped down), but the narrow angle of view allows me great control of the background, as I look for contrasts to further set off my subject.
Amount of background blur is overrated.
Yeah I actually agree with that.
Too many are obsessed with the amount of blur rather than quality. The Olympus f1.2 trio have a quality and smooth transition that can’t be beat
I agree, who cares? Most people understand the differences between various formats. There are plenty of restrictions using FF and certainly larger formats that have to be considered, so surely it is ‘horses for courses’ isn’t it. Why some people feel they have to knock other formats is beyond me. I have cameras that use 4 different formats and my only interest when I use them is getting a good photograph!
It is the photo not the camera, although I love the EM 1 II, that matters. Camera manufactures need to sell cameras so tech becomes more important than ascetics. I second that if you want shallow depth of field the 75mm 1.8 is amazing.
Awesome. Need to get me one of these M43 cameras soon. You just keep debunking all the myths I've heard and believed 😊
You should! They’re great fun and packed full of features.
Yes, - DO. It's same but different. And you get many fun functions and possibilities you don't get in other brands yet. It's a photographer's friend, even though the old menu system could be easier. You have the new menu system in the OM-1 only so far.
Your back and your wallet will thank you
75mm 1.8 for portraits, chefs kiss!
Ohh, poor you. Thoose mosquitos hurt all the way over here, to Sweden. I feel it 😅.
It’s worse now they have all come out. They got everywhere and I mean, everywhere.
@ChrisBaitson Same here in Sweden. At least an hour north from here. I loved your video about background blur by the way, as I love most of your videos. I have learnt a lot from them about using filters and so on. Keep on your path.
woooo!!! that is a "large" 40-150" :)
Nobody has ever said that to me before ☺️
Great video! Thanks. I love the 14-150. A fun, inexpensive lens. Same with the 75-300.
I like your thumbnail where everything is in focus 😅
Have to get myself sharp head to toe don’t I!!!
I get plenty of blurry background with micro four thirds. More often than not I find myself wanting a deeper depth of field, not shallower. Bokeh is great, but not having enough of your subject in focus can ruin an otherwise good photo.
As part of the anti-Micro 4/3 gang, the "phoblographer " website openly says it wont review M43 cameras (or APS-C) because they are doomed. Personally have cut them off my subscribed sites list now and hopefully they will be doomed for their part in the Fool Frame bigotry.
Excellent vid as always Chris 👌👏
Glad you enjoyed it. Thanks for watching Darren.
No problem love watching yours and Dave’s videos. Straight talking no nonsense but with heaps of helpful information.
Nice one Chris, very helpful demonstration. At least you had long sleeves on this time!!
Interesting as always and some great woodland shots. Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it
Good pose at 9:30 🤣 I hope that was intentional!
Completely by accident 🙄
Just found your videos now a subscriber
Thank you Roy and welcome to the channel.
Dang, I could see the mosquitos flying around you. Yikes! Totally agree with you about M43 myths that are still floating around. It's silly. A good photographer can get amazing images with full frame, APS-C or Micro Four-thirds cameras. Sure, they each have their strengths and weaknesses, but most modern cameras are capable of amazing photos. The idea that someone needs to lug around a expensive FF camera with larger lenses to take pro-level photographs is ridiculous.
We don't have Mossies just midges
@@colintraveller Gotcha. We don't get midges where I am, so I'm less familiar with them.
@@ryejack Wee flies common as muck up here in Scotland mainly found in the Countryside
Great content as usual. Seriously, how blurry does your background need to be? Here's a thought, get yourself a M4/3 kit and with the $$ you save on gear you can buy that super fancy AI editing software and bokeh the shit out of all your backgrounds. Then with all the extra space in your bag you can pack a lunch and a couple beers.
You should get that 75mm f1.8. Hands down the sharpest and bokeh lens m4/3rds has to offer. Fantastic video, sir. You do well putting commercialized creators to shame, trying to push more expensive products for the same results.
Chris, bothered by mosquitos. They do not like Citronella or Eucalyptus with Lemon, try using a few drops of essential oils on your skin if you are not allergic to any of them, it works for me.
Use my 45-150 Lumix for similar shots, really pleased with it!😀
Great to hear!
I would say that this fact that MFT cannot rival full frame with same blurred background - we can blame then the FF with the fact they cannot have same blur on the background that MF gives, and cannot have same image correction as LF... So what??? We chose our equipment to the tasks we require - for me its a hobby - and I moving downwards digitally - from FF to APS-C and now thinking to get into MFT... And also shooting film in FF, MF and LF...
that is, if I want to photograph people and blur the background on the M43 camera, I first need to reduce them to the size of a mushroom
or a flower?
No, if you want to get a blurry background for portraits with a m4/3 camera, you use a 45mm f1.8 (Olympus, less than £150 second hand on MPB). That's less than a stop slower than a 50mm 1.4, and has a better focal length for portraits, and is faster than whatever zoom you might use to get a bit closer. Of course, it isn't as good as a Sony 85mm 1.4, but that's more like £800 second-hand, and for other reasons too is not a lens you'd just tuck into your bag in case you need it.
In fact, wide aperture portraiture really isn't an issue for m4/3 at all. There are any number of f1.4 standard lenses in the 50-60mm range from classic SLRs that can cheaply bought and adapted, so a 100mm or 110mm f2.8 equivalent can be had for about £50. Of course, some of these older lenses were a bit soft at the edges... but we aren't using the edges, just the sharp centre.
9min 20sec. 😂 See what ya did there. 👀😮
You saw nothing! 🤫
I'm not sure it's the case that the depth of field of a f/1.8 lens on a M43 lens is the same as f/1.8 on full frame. I think there is a 2x effect on DoF as well as focal length. So depth of field wise f/1.8 on M43 is equivalent to f/2.5 on full frame. Of course that's going to give you plenty of blurry backgrounds.
People like Tony Northrop perpetuate this myth, the real trick is mm and distance
If you’re not shooting 150mm f/0.95 on medium format can you even call yourself a photographer 😂
😂
Rubbish
Never had an issue with blurry backgrounds on M43 and use the f1,8 holy trinity. The 17mm is a bit wide but the 25 and 45 are great. Also had success with the plastic fantastic 40-150, just need plenty of light. I wonder what the 70-300 is like?
I really enjoy my 70-300mm. In good light, it works very well. When I go to the coast, I always take it and enjoy photographing the shore birds, and the many raptors near my home in the foothills of the mountains. I understand it’s capabilities, and I know it does not perform quite up to the level of the pro zooms, but I’ve been extremely happy with the results. The key things I remember is I need good light, and I don’t want to over-crop the image.
It is a myth. I was posting photos with nice blurry background at least 10 years ago with the Panasonic Leica DG 25mm f1.4. But in any case, if you want burry backgrounds just use the new feature in Lightroom (haha).
Would you mind saying where you shot the video
North Cliffe Woods nature reserve
I use the 45 f1.8 and get lovely background blur we all use common sense
You can evaluate the blur power of a lens by simple math. Divide the focal length by the aperture. The 25mm f1.8 will give you a 13,8 the plastic fantastic will give you a 26,8 so you see that this lens will give you more blur. Now when it comes to full frame you have the benefit of higher focal length. I think there are some limitations when it comes to portrait photography. The 45mm pro has less blur then a 85mm f1.8 on full frame but often the customer/ person you take photos of will not notice. But technology interested photo nerds will notice....
It's easy to get a shallow depth of field if you're close to your subject with separation to the background. However in the more usual distance for portraits it's going to be more difficult get that background blur with mft than full frame. I own mft, apsc and full frame and like them all but why buy a mft camera if you primarily shoot portraits?
Well of course, but equally, why if you primarily shoot portraits are you using 35mm "full frame" rather than a medium format camera? And now we're back to the 1980s with the camera club bores with their Hasselblads and Mamiyas looking down on the 35mm folk.
Sure, if you want to shoot mostly portraits, use a 35mm sensor and a 90mm portrait lens. But if you mostly shoot landscapes and nature, there are huge advantages to having a smaller camera, and you can still pick up a tiny second-hand 45mm portrait lens for about £150, or use an adaptor to mount a manual-focus 50mm 1.4 with a bit of character for even less.
Disregard Ken's assertions. Despite his self-proclaimed professional status, his unorthodox methods and perspectives, such as favouring JPEGs (even from smartphones), dismissing digital RAW (some quotes from his website: "Raw is very popular for people shooting landscapes with digital cameras, which is not what digital cameras are for.", "Raw is designed for people who intend to spend a lot of time twiddling with one image at a time.", "Raw is also for people who don't yet get perfect exposure right when they make the image, although of course JPEGs also allow these adjustments."), and excessively sharpening and saturating his images, suggest that his viewpoints should be viewed VERY skeptically.
Ken really thinks that he knows everything about cameras, lenses and photography, just ask him! He is the most over rated, self loving smartazz on RUclips! His predictions are always wrong. I just quit watching him. I wish he would go back to Russia!
Interesting channel. Subscribe ❤😊