btbg

The lens you already have is as good as you are going to get without an even faster prime lens.

The f4 lens would not help you in any way with what you are trying to do. The f2.8 lens is a much better lens.

Also, the people telling you to use a neutral density filter are being ridiculous. You do need to use your lens wide open. Also you will get better results if you are more careful about what is in the background of your photos. The cleaner the background is the more it will appear to be blurred.

The closer you can get to the subject and the farther away the background is the more the background will be blurred.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Have you shot the 75mm wide open on a sunny day on an em10ii? The em10ii has a max shutter speed of 1/4000s (mechanical shutter). Highlights will be over exposed during a sunny afternoon at f1.8. ND is a must for times like this with this lens and body combo.

kmbro2 Loc: Wildwood FL. 34785

I was asking Traveler38. Sorry, I have kind of gotten left behind on the advances digital cameras. My first dslr was a Konix,,, I think it was, K1000. A complete manual camera. After I had lost, then regained my eyesight. I upgraded to a Sony DSLR-A100 with two zoom lenses. 28-70mm F2.8 and an 75-300mm F2.8. (That's what happens when you know the big boss for Sony Marketing.) Over the years, I have published a slew of photo's for some professor's of my ex-wife. But I never bothered to keep up with the advances in photography. Now that I have retired, I'm starting to get back in.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

ND filters are very handy for Micro 4/3! I keep ND8 and ND64 in my bag at all times. They greatly extend the working range of wider apertures available in daylight.

I don’t use apertures smaller than f/5.6 if I can avoid them. f/5.6 @ 25mm on m43 is like f/11 @ 50mm on full frame. On m43, f5.6 is right on the border between optimum lens performance and diffraction limiting of sharpness. But depth of field is pretty deep! That’s bad if you’re trying to isolate a subject, and good if you need much of the scene to be in focus.

epd1947

There are three parameters to consider when discussing depth of field - aperture, camera to subject distance and lens focal length. Many people will tell you that cameras with smaller sensors are the problem and that larger sensors provide less depth of field - that is not actually true. What you are faced with is that cameras with smaller sensors take in a narrower field of view at any given focal length and/or camera to subject distance. To get the framing of the photo that you want, therefore, you either have to move further from the subject and/or use a shorter focal length lens than would be required to achieve the same framing when shooting with a camera with a larger sensor. Increasing camera to subject distance and/or using a shorter focal length lens will both increase your depth of field. In your circumstance you are likely a fair distance away from the action and that long camera to subject distance is working against your efforts to achieve a shallow depth of field.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Actually four. CoC (circle of confusion) is a factor in the DOF calculation and is directly related to sensor size. Pick a DOF calculator, such as DOFMaster, and notice that there is a variable for sensor size. For a further discussion on the subject, see:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

TRAVLR38, I took a look at some of the picture data and it shows that in the bright Boulder, Colorado sunlight that I was shooting stop action at 1/500, ISO 200, and f9. F9 gives one an incredible large depth of field. The only way I would have been able to get my f-stop down to my minimum f2.8/3.5 is the use of neutral density filter of about 3 f-stops.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

So you needed to drop your exposure ~3-1/2 stops to get to f2.8. How about ISO 100 and 1/4000 SS (4 stops)? (Assuming your body has 1/4000 available)

TRAVLR38 Loc: CENTRAL PA

Thanks, Unclehoss. This is good advice!

TRAVLR38 Loc: CENTRAL PA

Thanks, Jerry. I have been blurring backgrounds in PS. The links here are useful, especially when refering to the select and mask function. Seems like a good way to cut out hair, BTW.
But the problem is time. At approximately ten to fifteen minutes a picture (getting a precise selection is what takes me the most time), blurring in PS is not as efficient as getting the blur and separation right in camera.
I think I will try the 75mm 1.8 lens, although, not being a zoom, it is likely to be very limiting.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Absolutely right. That why there were suggestions for neutral density filters of 3 stops, 6 stops, and other densities by Burkphoto and others. I know the E-M1 mrII goes down to ISO 64 and a mechanical shutter of 1/8000, but I'm not sure the E-M10 series matches those same marks.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

OM-10 II goes to 1/4000 mechanical, 1/16,000 electronic shutter speeds. Electronic shutters of that type are not recommended for laterally moving subjects, due to rolling shutter effect, although it would be slight at 1/16,000 for most subjects.

ISO 200 is base; ISO 100 is extended low (compresses highlight details, to get there)

alfeng Loc: Out where the West commences ...

I use an m4/3 camera and do not feel that I have any difficulty isolating the foreground from the background ...

Based on taking a lot of "sports" pics when I was in college (early 70s), having a Zoom lens with a wideangle capability is counterproductive for the type of sports shots which you appear to want because a LONGER-than-100mm lens (FF 200mm relative length) will greatly facilitate achieving what you want.

... If I could have afforded a 300mm lens, then I would probably have used it instead of my 200mm (a plebeian f3.5 Canon FL) lens.

That is, if you must have a Zoom lens, then you probably want it to begin at 100mm-and-go-up-from-there.

If you feel a need to ALSO have shorter focal lengths, then the solution now-as-in-the-past is to have a SECOND camera body which will have the short "Zoom" lens.

If you don't need autofocus, then there are plenty of vintage Prime lenses which you can-buy/(use) to ascertain how long you want the focal length to be ... you just need to go 'old school' and know-the-sport and then pre-focus on the spot where you anticipate (hope) the action will be for when you feel a need to spend more money.

BTW. On the 'short' end, you can get an inexpensive (under $20 on eBay) set of extension tubes which will allow you to focus more closely than the lens normally will ... the autofocus & autoexposure will still work as long as you choose a set which has the connecting pins.