Likewise, wide aperture photography is simply a nice option to have, and isn't exclusively for low-light or the "one eyelash in focus" look:īut that's hardly worth chasing most of the time. Isn't that like saying, "What missing with MFT is that super garish HDR processing where the photo looks more like a painting than a photo"? I mean, having a sensor with high DR is a nice thing to have, even if one rarely needs to expose lower to preserve highlights and then push the midtones and shadows in the RAW conversion. What missing with MFT is that super shallow DOF of FF or MF where one eyelash is in focus. But that's hardly worth chasing most of the time. Some of my best bokeh shots are with the 12-100mm at F4. It can, but I don't think extreme close up photo's prove your point. What's you favourite Micro 4/3 soft bokeh lens? Maybe the Olympus 75mm F/1.8 or the Noktons?ĮM1 mkII + ISCO Cinelux-AV 150mm F/2.8 + Focal ReducerĮM1 mkII + ISCO Ultra-Star HD-Plus 82.5mm F/1.8 + Focal ReducerĮM1 mkII + Schneider-Kreuznach Cine-Xenon 55mm F/2 + Focal Reducer These give the most amazing soft bokeh (almost like you have applied a gaussian blur filter!) If you want to go really soft on backgrounds there are easily adaptable cine projection lenses (my favourites are the ISCO Ultra-Star HD-Plus range - the red ones). There are some great 'soft bokeh' lenses for Micro 4/3: the Olympus 45mm F/1.2, the Sigma 56mm F/1.4, etc. This all seems crazy to me as soft bokeh in backgrounds has more to due to with lens design (and of course having right distances between camera, subject and background). One of the criticisms I read repeatedly is that "Micro 4/3 can' t do bokeh" or "not so good for portraiture", "for soft bokeh you need full-frame", etc.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |