On 4/12/2015 10:22 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
It is a perfectly lovely portrait and no doubt much better than I could do or even have imagined. But I do wish you
would refrain from claiming that I said 4/3 format is lousy for portraits and that a photo such as yours is
impossible. I never said any such thing but did say that getting a shallow depth of field was more difficult than
full-frame.
You make a mistake in assuming that AG was responding directly and only to what you wrote. He has a larger audience
composed of a vast array of various kinds of naysayers and opinionaters. How many of them exist in the outside world and
how many only in his head, we (and he) will never know for sure. ;-)
There's a certain 'voice' he adopts when stepping up on the soapbox. The orations are almost always interesting, often
informative, but rather unlike simple, direct responses to the meat of any question of comment that pushed that
particular button. :-)
Moose has been known to play the opposite role, cutting through all the accretions of the thread to respond directly to
the original subject, with so many words, in such detail, and with so many caveats that those brave enough to dive in
may later wake from an unintended nap.
The thing that raised the question in the first place was an upper body shot at 50mm from 10 feet and a head/shoulders
shot at 50mm from 5 feet. I was complaining that neither of the 4 *native* lenses I own have either the appropriate
focal length or a sufficiently large aperture to do shallow depth of field at those distances. I also own four 50mm
OMZs but it was my choice not to use manual lenses. You've chosen a clever way to defeat a problem but you've chosen
to solve a different problem that doesn't meet my original requirement.
One of the reasons I have the M.Z 45/1.8. The right FL, fast, quick AF, tiny/light and relatively inexpensive. The Panny
20/1.7 is nice too, but a little wide for a portrait of a single person. For a subject with a giant proboscis, the depth
compression of the 75/1.8 could be useful for close-in portraits.
Jim says: "It's all in one's choice of the lens. The sensor size really plays very little part in this." Well, the
sensor size plays a very large part in this. It dictates a focal length only 1/2 that for full-frame for a given
angle of coverage which, in turn, dictates a 2-stop larger aperture for a given depth of field. I don't have those
2-stop larger apertures other than my old Zuikos.
Yup. Dat's 'da way it is.
Qualifier Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|