Need Help From Someone Smarter Than Me- M4/3 Crop Factor (Page 7): The concept is beyond his understanding.

mflowe Loc: Port Deposit, MD

SuperflyTNT wrote:

That’s not at all what I said. I find it pretty useful to know the equivalent focal length on my M4/3. It’s pretty useful to know that if I like my 85mm on my FF that my 42.5mm on the M4/3 will give me the same view.

The concept is beyond his understanding.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

burkphoto wrote:

I've been using m43 for five years, and don't find... (show quote)

My findings are that the extra 4/3rds DOF is only a detriment when one desires a near totally blurred background. For sports and BIF, the extra depth of field helps make sure most if not all of the subject is in focus. And as good as the focus systems are these days, not one of them is so perfect that it cannot be fooled by a particular situation.

tomcat

SuperflyTNT wrote:

That’s not at all what I said. I find it pretty useful to know the equivalent focal length on my M4/3. It’s pretty useful to know that if I like my 85mm on my FF that my 42.5mm on the M4/3 will give me the same view.

ok. that's fine, but do you have a 42.5mm for the M4/3 format?

User ID

tomcat wrote:

ok. that's fine, but do you have a 42.5mm for the M4/3 format?

You referring to the 42.5/1.7 LUMIX m4/3 lens ? Don’t know about tomcat but Burke probably does have one.

Olympus sensibly makes a 45mm but Panasonic cut the baby exactly in half.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

User ID wrote:

You referring to the 42.5/1.7 LUMIX m4/3 lens ? Don’t know about tomcat but Burke probably does have one.

Olympus sensibly makes a 45mm but Panasonic cut the baby exactly in half.

The 45 f1.2 lens is in the middle of my lens list of what I still want to acquire. Big for a 4/3rds lens but fast and very, very sharp. I would be using it for portraits mainly and as other situations occur requiring a fast sharp prime. I had a chance to play with one all night at the E-M1X launch event. It is an amazing lens.

tomcat

wdross wrote:

The 45 f1.2 lens is in the middle of my lens list of what I still want to acquire. Big for a 4/3rds lens but fast and very, very sharp. I would be using it for portraits mainly and as other situations occur requiring a fast sharp prime. I had a chance to play with one all night at the E-M1X launch event. It is an amazing lens.

Be careful if you use it for portraits. It could cause facial distortion, particularly elongating a nose and making eyes more pointed

User ID

wdross wrote:

The 45 f1.2 lens is in the middle of my lens list of what I still want to acquire. Big for a 4/3rds lens but fast and very, very sharp. I would be using it for portraits mainly and as other situations occur requiring a fast sharp prime. I had a chance to play with one all night at the E-M1X launch event. It is an amazing lens.

Before buying an amazing but extra large, extra cost, lens do check out the compact 45/1.8, which acoarst is LESS amazing, but not less THAN amazing.

Just a matter of size, cost, and degree of amazingness. The tiny size of the f/1.8 is very attractive to some ... but OTOH very embarrassing to others.

cahale Loc: San Angelo, TX

mflowe wrote:

I recently purchased a Olympus em5 mkll because I can't carry around my FF equipment anymore. I want to use my Nikon lenses until I can afford the M Zuiko goodies. I want to use one of the 0.71x focal Reducer Speed Booster. I have the FF math figured out. My 80-200 would be 114-284. I'm stumped trying to figure out the equivalent focal length of my 12-24 aps-c dx lens.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Same ratio: 284/200 = 1.42 X 12 = 17; X 24 = 34: 17-34.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

wdross wrote:

My findings are that the extra 4/3rds DOF is only a detriment when one desires a near totally blurred background. For sports and BIF, the extra depth of field helps make sure most if not all of the subject is in focus. And as good as the focus systems are these days, not one of them is so perfect that it cannot be fooled by a particular situation.

That’s been my experience most of the time, too.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

User ID wrote:

Before buying an amazing but extra large, extra cost, lens do check out the compact 45/1.8, which acoarst is LESS amazing, but not less THAN amazing.

Just a matter of size, cost, and degree of amazingness. The tiny size of the f/1.8 is very attractive to some ... but OTOH very embarrassing to others.

Olympus also makes a phenomenal 42.5mm f/1.2. It’s bigger, sharper, etc. — but it’s very expensive. Panasonic Lumix makes a 42.5mm f/1.7 that’s best for Lumix body users. They also make a Panasonic Leica 42.5mm f/1.2, but it’s $1000 more expensive...

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

tomcat wrote:

Be careful if you use it for portraits. It could cause facial distortion, particularly elongating a nose and making eyes more pointed

45mm's angle of view in 4/3rds is the same angle of view of the 90mm FF in angle of view (27°). I know there are some that like the angle of view of their portrait lens less or greater than 27°, but for me 27° provides the proper perspective for the portraits I want. Flattens the image over a 50mm FF angle of view (47°) without taking away all the feel of facial features.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

wdross wrote:

45mm's angle of view in 4/3rds is the same angle of view of the 90mm FF in angle of view (27°). I know there are some that like the angle of view of their portrait lens less or greater than 27°, but for me 27° provides the proper perspective for the portraits I want. Flattens the image over a 50mm FF angle of view (47°) without taking away all the feel of facial features.

90mm FF is a very good choice. Actually, a 100 or 105 FF lens is more common, for a prime portrait lens, but most working pros use a 70-200mm f/2.8 FF zoom (or in my case, a 35-100mm f/2.8 Micro 4/3). Facial structure and scene depth affect my position relative to the subject, and my choice of focal length. A flat face might be photographed at 35mm (m43), while the lady with elongated schnoz and deeply set eyes might get closer to 100mm.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

User ID wrote:

Before buying an amazing but extra large, extra cost, lens do check out the compact 45/1.8, which acoarst is LESS amazing, but not less THAN amazing.

Just a matter of size, cost, and degree of amazingness. The tiny size of the f/1.8 is very attractive to some ... but OTOH very embarrassing to others.

I have seen and tried the 45 f1.8 at Mike's Camera here in the Denver area. It is a terrific lens. As expected, the f1.8 is smaller, lighter, and less costly than the 45 f1.2 and a very, very good alternative to the f1.2. One's decision making is: Do I want to take on the extra size, weight, and cost for the lower light ability and smaller depth of field at the f1.2? For a lot of people, the answer will be no. But there will be some of us that want to be prepared for the situation that will push our equipment to its limits. When out shooting, I have done that on a too regular basis. Still, one should not go into debt or bankruptcy for a lens.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

burkphoto wrote:

img src="https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/images/s... (show quote)

👍👍👍 Good advice!

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

burkphoto wrote:

img src="https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/images/s... (show quote)

I agree with TriX. I'll try using my 14-54 f2.8/3.5 zoom (28-108 in FF AOV terms).