Panasonic G9 or Olympus E-M1ii

Just on that DOF issue. A lot of portraits and I suppose pictures in general seem to have less DoF than I'd be happy with. For example portraits of people where it's clearly visible even in a relatively small picture posted here that one eye is clearly out of focus on my lap top screen. This is obviously a personal preference thing but a lot of the time I'd be looking to get the head in the DOF but some people seem to think that they have to use an f1.4 lens at f1.4 all the time and if they feel like that then good luck to them but there are times when even with a half body shot with FF I'd want to be stepping down past f5.6 to get enough DoF and at f5.6 to f8 you can get that DoF from a MFT zoom never mind a prime.

MFT DoF is IMO a non issue a lot of the time.

But that's just me :D

I agree, but then no matter the format I have never got this fascination with extreme shallow DOF. For me the wider aperture lenses offer better low light capability, I rarely even think about the 'bokeh' or shallow DOF when opting for a 1.4 lens, because I know I can achieve it with any lens. My cheap adapted 55-250mm has better 'bokeh' at 5.6 - f8 than some bright primes I've owned
 
Last edited:
I thought I wanted FF again when I was deciding to make a switch, but if I'm honest with myself I don't need it in any way. The only reason for me to get a FF camera would be for the ISO performance, and I tend to stay on the lower side of that either way. What I loved about M43 was the extra DOF you got at wider aperture, the opposite of what most want maybe. But for macro or even garden wildlife, shooting wide open with whatever lens allows you that bit more depth to keep things in check. If you want 'bokeh' you can easily achieve it too, you just need to get that bit closer
Just on that DOF issue. A lot of portraits and I suppose pictures in general seem to have less DoF than I'd be happy with. For example portraits of people where it's clearly visible even in a relatively small picture posted here that one eye is clearly out of focus on my lap top screen. This is obviously a personal preference thing but a lot of the time I'd be looking to get the head in the DOF but some people seem to think that they have to use an f1.4 lens at f1.4 all the time and if they feel like that then good luck to them but there are times when even with a half body shot with FF I'd want to be stepping down past f5.6 to get enough DoF and at f5.6 to f8 you can get that DoF from a MFT zoom never mind a prime.

MFT DoF is IMO a non issue a lot of the time.

But that's just me :D
The whole increased DOF thing is both a pro and con, depending on what you're shooting. Having extra DOF is definitely preferably in certain situations, and I use this to my advantage on holidays. However, I do like shallow DOF. I'm not keen on the half an eyelash type shallow DOF, but I like this kind of pop where it looks (to my eyes) slightly miniature/toy like.

NZ7_1291 by TDG-77, on Flickr

Now I'm not saying you can't get this 'look' with M4/3 but it is harder, and you really need the right lens. For example, the 45mm f1.8 and Sigma 56mm f1.4 didn't give me this same look. In fact the only lens I've seen that produces something similar is the 42.5cm f1.2 Panny Leica. This is all very subjective though, and I'm sure there'll be people looking at this image wondering what the hell I'm talking about :LOL:
 
The whole increased DOF thing is both a pro and con, depending on what you're shooting. Having extra DOF is definitely preferably in certain situations, and I use this to my advantage on holidays. However, I do like shallow DOF. I'm not keen on the half an eyelash type shallow DOF, but I like this kind of pop where it looks (to my eyes) slightly miniature/toy like.

NZ7_1291 by TDG-77, on Flickr

Now I'm not saying you can't get this 'look' with M4/3 but it is harder, and you really need the right lens. For example, the 45mm f1.8 and Sigma 56mm f1.4 didn't give me this same look. In fact the only lens I've seen that produces something similar is the 42.5cm f1.2 Panny Leica. This is all very subjective though, and I'm sure there'll be people looking at this image wondering what the hell I'm talking about :LOL:

I get what you mean, as some call it the 'pop' in an image. It depends on the subject, the backdrop, how close you are, the aperture used etc - it is very possible to get a nice shallow DOF or blur out backdrops with any system, even 1" sensors if you use a very long FL
 
I get what you mean, as some call it the 'pop' in an image. It depends on the subject, the backdrop, how close you are, the aperture used etc - it is very possible to get a nice shallow DOF or blur out backdrops with any system, even 1" sensors if you use a very long FL
It is, but I still don't think it's the same in terms of 'look'. I've got loads of m4/3 images where the background is completely obliterated, but I'm yet to get this pop/3d/miniature look.
 
Back to the Meerkats, here's a 1:1 crop on the m4/3 and then the D850 with a similar amount of cropping. In hindsight the m4/3 is a touch over sharpened for a 1:1 image, but this was never my intention ;) I still think the m4/3 looks better, even though it's over sharpened.


P2272155-Edit copy
by TDG-77, on Flickr

DSC_7971
by TDG-77, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that Toby. If someone had asked me to judge which was which I wouldn't have been able to. it looks like the top one was shot in brighter sunlight (judging by the shadow) which may have affected the comparison.

Quite an exciting result, really, for those thinking of going m4/3.
 
The whole increased DOF thing is both a pro and con, depending on what you're shooting. Having extra DOF is definitely preferably in certain situations, and I use this to my advantage on holidays. However, I do like shallow DOF. I'm not keen on the half an eyelash type shallow DOF, but I like this kind of pop where it looks (to my eyes) slightly miniature/toy like.

Now I'm not saying you can't get this 'look' with M4/3 but it is harder, and you really need the right lens. For example, the 45mm f1.8 and Sigma 56mm f1.4 didn't give me this same look. In fact the only lens I've seen that produces something similar is the 42.5cm f1.2 Panny Leica. This is all very subjective though, and I'm sure there'll be people looking at this image wondering what the hell I'm talking about :LOL:

If that's 50mm at f1.8 then you're going to struggle to get that look with MFT but maybe the Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 wouldn't be too far out. I had one and it's a very nice lens. I have A3 prints of all my cars but none were taken at wide apertures.

Looking at the look you get from ff at f1.x through stopped down for me the point at which the differences become significant is at about f2.8, give or take, so I can see how some would be frustrated by MFT as that's the starting point with a f1.4 lens. Luckily for me most of the pictures I like the most tend to be ones that are stopped down a bit.
 
Last edited:
If that's 50mm at f1.8 then you're going to struggle to get that look with MFT but maybe the Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 wouldn't be too far out. I had one and it's a very nice lens. I have A3 prints of all my cars but none were taken at wide apertures.

Looking at the look you get from ff at f1.x through stopped down for me the point at which the differences become significant is at about f2.8, give or take, so I can see how some would be frustrated by MFT as that's the starting point with a f1.4 lens. Luckily for me most of the pictures I like the most tend to be ones that are stopped down a bit.

They must be doing something wrong if they can't get shallow DOF at 2.8 with M43 then, it's really not hard. This was at f/4.5, if we play the equivalence game then it's F9 FF, the branch that's barely recognizable is right behind the one in focus
Early Cherry, Spring '19 by K G, on Flickr
 
They must be doing something wrong if they can't get shallow DOF at 2.8 with M43 then, it's really not hard. This was at f/4.5, if we play the equivalence game then it's F9 FF, the branch that's barely recognizable is right behind the one in focus.

I meant that for me with FF the differences in DoF between f1.x and smaller apertures becomes significant at about f2.8. Yes you can get very thin DoF by reducing the camera to subject distance and with smaller things like flowers and bugs and stuff like that getting enough DoF is possibly going to be an issue but for larger subjects like people and cars getting closer often isn't going to be too good an option as you'll end up limiting the amount of your subject that you capture.
 
I meant that for me with FF the differences in DoF between f1.x and smaller apertures becomes significant at about f2.8. Yes you can get very thin DoF by reducing the camera to subject distance and with smaller things like flowers and bugs and stuff like that getting enough DoF is possibly going to be an issue but for larger subjects like people and cars getting closer often isn't going to be too good an option as you'll end up limiting the amount of your subject that you capture.

I do get ya, I've even noticed a difference with APSC but not massively so. It's a nice middle ground. Not everyone wants shallow DOF for general type shots though, but if you're an M43 user and do want it for say a full length portrait, then the best bet is using a tele lens. The aperture is less important
 
I do get ya, I've even noticed a difference with APSC but not massively so. It's a nice middle ground. Not everyone wants shallow DOF for general type shots though, but if you're an M43 user and do want it for say a full length portrait, then the best bet is using a tele lens. The aperture is less important
This is the closest comparison I have. Not a great one as this is with the 45mm so completely different FOV but it gives an idea of the difference in 'look'
Havana, Cuba 2019 by TDG-77, on Flickr

And the FF one again for comparison
NZ7_1291 by TDG-77, on Flickr


For the record, I'm not saying one's better than the other per se, just what my preference is and one of the reasons why I still like to keep FF (y)
 
Keep all other things constant i.e. the subject, background, composition, FoV etc you can never get the same shallow DoF as APS-C or FF. Not to mention you'll spend more than both the other formats trying to get close to it. That is not to say you can't get shallow DoF with m43 of course just that will all other things being equal APS-C and FF would be on top (that's just physics :p )
But as mentioned you don't want half an eye-lash in focus all the time lol. There are many places where I have felt my LX100ii was better than shooting FF because I could shoot at f1.7-2.8 at base ISO and still work out what was happening in background. Of course there the argument that FF is twice as better in ISO performance so I could just stop down on FF but that's another debate entirely I don't want to get into here :D
 
I believe the main benefit of staying with the same brand for lens and body is you get better dual stabilization.

The main benefit is that if you want half decent CAF, which you do for sports/wildlife, you MUST use Panasonic lenses on a Panasonic body so you get their DFD technology.

This is why I would get the Oly, it uses phase detect which works on any lens.

BTW, the lens OIS in the 100-400 is more than good enough on its own and takes you easily below shutter speeds that are useful for this type of lens - I can get very good hit rate at 1/100 at 400mm
 
The main benefit is that if you want half decent CAF, which you do for sports/wildlife, you MUST use Panasonic lenses on a Panasonic body so you get their DFD technology.

This is why I would get the Oly, it uses phase detect which works on any lens.

BTW, the lens OIS in the 100-400 is more than good enough on its own and takes you easily below shutter speeds that are useful for this type of lens - I can get very good hit rate at 1/100 at 400mm

I am not convinced DFD is as good or any where near as good for tracking animals compared to PDAF (on EM1ii). DFD may keep up but just the fact that the viewfinder shows the back and forth jitter of the AF makes it hard to follow things.
But OP said this was not an immediate concern and has gone with G9 I believe
 
This is the closest comparison I have. Not a great one as this is with the 45mm so completely different FOV but it gives an idea of the difference in 'look'
Havana, Cuba 2019 by TDG-77, on Flickr

And the FF one again for comparison
NZ7_1291 by TDG-77, on Flickr


For the record, I'm not saying one's better than the other per se, just what my preference is and one of the reasons why I still like to keep FF (y)

Not really seeing it tbh, as the example comparison isn't as isolated so I'm left to imagine.

I'll be perfectly honest, this dof thing just nauseates me. 2 seconds in photo shop gets that effect if it's really important, it is called tilt shift. You weren't specifically going for that look maybe on the first image but that's kinda what it is
 
Last edited:
I am not convinced DFD is as good or any where near as good for tracking animals compared to PDAF (on EM1ii). DFD may keep up but just the fact that the viewfinder shows the back and forth jitter of the AF makes it hard to follow things.
But OP said this was not an immediate concern and has gone with G9 I believe

Agreed, and maybe I should read all of a thread before replying :D
 
Not really seeing it tbh, as the example comparison isn't as isolated so I'm left to imagine.

I'll be perfectly honest, this dof thing just nauseates me. 2 seconds in photo shop gets that effect of it's really important, it is called tilt shift. You weren't specifically going for that look maybe on the first image but that's kinda what it is

Photoshop effect isn't perfect and sometimes is also obviously photoshopped ;)
But mobile phone these days do a pretty nice job. My phone camera with two cameras does a pretty decent job of it.
There are ways to achieve it obviously but for some purists they will like the EOS R or EF system with a bunch of f1.2 primes :D
 
Last edited:
Photoshop effect isn't perfect and sometimes is also obviously photoshopped ;)
But mobile phone these days do a pretty nice job. My phone camera with two cameras does a pretty decent job of it.
There are ways to achieve it obviously but for some purists they will like the EOS R or EF system with a bunch of f1.2 primes :D

Yeah but a lot of those same purists over spend just for the sake of achieving this and the general Joe doesn't even see the difference. I was viewing the images on a phone when I posted that and honestly, the difference is so minimal ... if you're viewing on a larger monitor like I am now you can see a bit better, but still ... if done right the PS method doesn't have to look faked. It's a technique that's been used for donkey's years when TS lenses were mad expensive. I think you can get pretty cheap ones these days
 
Yeah but a lot of those same purists over spend just for the sake of achieving this and the general Joe doesn't even see the difference. I was viewing the images on a phone when I posted that and honestly, the difference is so minimal ... if you're viewing on a larger monitor like I am now you can see a bit better, but still ... if done right the PS method doesn't have to look faked. It's a technique that's been used for donkey's years when TS lenses were mad expensive. I think you can get pretty cheap ones these days

TS-E lenses are pretty expensive these days too.
I used to be able to get that effect in camera too :D
16007173039_ef18f26141_b.jpg
 
TS-E lenses are pretty expensive these days too.
I used to be able to get that effect in camera too :D
16007173039_ef18f26141_b.jpg

They are for what they do I guess, but there is cheapo options from the likes of lens-baby, even Samyang have TS lenses now.

I know that snerkler didn't actually use a TS lens in this case, but that is the look that was produced, as he says '3d miniature look' - that is basically TS. The main reason the examples don't work is one is a more isolated car against a lesser cluttered BG, the other has more going on. I see no major difference in the vehicles so we're looking to the BG only and it's hard to judge. You'd have to compare like for like really to see the differences
 
Last edited:
They are for what they do I guess, but there is cheapo options from the likes of lens-baby, even Samyang have TS lenses now.

I know that snerkler didn't actually use a TS lens in this case, but that is the look that was produced, as he says '3d miniature look' - that is basically TS. The main reason the examples don't work is one is an isolated car against a non cluttered BG, the other isn't. You'd have to compare like for like really to see the differences

indeed and actually cars are easy to photoshop if one does want to go down that route. Its got fairly well define boundaries and easily done. I find people are hardest especially when trying to capture a certain angle, emotion or ambiance.
 
Just edited to make clearer what I meant, as neither are really non cluttered backgrounds, but the first is that bit clearer.

Cars and even people as single subjects are easy enough, in many cases it's just adding some blur to the top and bottom of the image and you can get that effect. That's the most basic method, you can do more like masking the subject and performing a little specific pp to the backdrop

Where FF does win IMO is for the likes of candid people shots in more crowded locations, you can separate them from the crowd easier even at a distance. Just an example of what I might be thinking were FF can be a benefit. Useful for weddings, parties etc where you want to pull your subject out a little without being invasive. The ISO performance too, you will mostly get cleaner results from a FF sensor, at least from the same era. An up to date M43 sensor will beat some FF sensors from a decade ago though
 
Not really seeing it tbh, as the example comparison isn't as isolated so I'm left to imagine.

I'll be perfectly honest, this dof thing just nauseates me. 2 seconds in photo shop gets that effect if it's really important, it is called tilt shift. You weren't specifically going for that look maybe on the first image but that's kinda what it is
Maybe I"m not explaining it very well, but it's not as simple as getting a tilt-shift effect. I know it's not an ideal comparison as I said before, but I prefer the way the car is rendered on the FF, taking the background out of the equation and how blurred it may or may not be there is definitely a different look to the car to my eyes (apart from the fact it's a different car :p). If others don't see it, or I'm not explaining it very well that's fine, at the end of the day I take images for myself not others (y) I'm not trying to say one format is better than the other etc, just that there are reasons that I prefer FF for certain things, just like I prefer M4/3 for certain things :)
 
Maybe I"m not explaining it very well, but it's not as simple as getting a tilt-shift effect. I know it's not an ideal comparison as I said before, but I prefer the way the car is rendered on the FF, taking the background out of the equation and how blurred it may or may not be there is definitely a different look to the car to my eyes (apart from the fact it's a different car :p). If others don't see it, or I'm not explaining it very well that's fine, at the end of the day I take images for myself not others (y) I'm not trying to say one format is better than the other etc, just that there are reasons that I prefer FF for certain things, just like I prefer M4/3 for certain things :)

I can see it, but I think if you'd posted both images without saying what they were shot using I would just think the second had a more cluttered BG, that's why it doesn't 'pop' as much. I mean, I'm not anti-FF or anything here :D I shot FF for a few years and I do realise the benefits. I just don't personally need those benefits. I have been tempted to give FF another whirl but being honest with myself, I can't afford any of the lenses I would really like to use for FF. APSC or M43 do all that I want, I can live without the shallower DOF. I mostly shoot macro, close up, textures that kinda thing, and as we said it's easy to get the shallower DOF for close ups using any kit
 
I can see it, but I think if you'd posted both images without saying what they were shot using I would just think the second had a more cluttered BG, that's why it doesn't 'pop' as much.
This is why I think we're talking about two different things tbh, the rendering I'm talking about is not influenced by the BG. These have a really cluttered BG but still render differently to the m4/3 to my eyes (y)

NZ7_1299
by TDG-77, on Flickr

NZ7_1281
by TDG-77, on Flickr


To be honest though I think we could go round in circles all day on this ;) :p
 
Last edited:
This is why I think we're talking about two different things tbh, the rendering I'm talking about is not influenced by the BG. These have a really cluttered BG but still render differently to the m4/3 to my eyes (y)

NZ7_1299
by TDG-77, on Flickr

NZ7_1281
by TDG-77, on Flickr


To be honest though I think we could go round in circles all day on this ;) :p

Yeah not really seeing it, on the phone again :p
 
Back
Top