Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Olympus Micro Four Thirds (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/olympus-micro-four-thirds-103/)
-   -   Experimenting with EPL1 + 20mm (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/olympus-micro-four-thirds-103/experimenting-epl1-20mm-177199/)

Tullio Sep 19, 2010 1:26 AM

Experimenting with EPL1 + 20mm
 
5 Attachment(s)
I still haven't decided whether I'll keep the EPL1 or not. In the meantime, I'm experimenting with it. These were shot with the Lumix 20mm.

shoturtle Sep 19, 2010 5:35 AM

I would test your setup in low light, where you are shooting at 1600iso. It will really give you a good idea what kind of results you can get in less then ideal lighting.

That 20mm looks mighty sharp.

Tullio Sep 19, 2010 10:14 AM

If in one hand the 20mm allows me to shoot in very low light conditions for being such a fast lens, on the other, the DoF is so shallow that unless the subject is flat (like the pictures that Greg took in the art gallery), you'll only get one spot in focus. The slate figure shot (3rd from the top) was taken with ISO 2000 (that's the cap I set based on your findings in terms of how well the camera will handle noise at various ISO values) at f1.7. Most of it is not in focus because of that.

I am now replying to this post from my laptop and I can see that my pictures look pretty dull on this monitor but very bright and colorful on my desktop monitor. How do they look to you? If the problem is with my laptop screen, I need to make sure I don't comment on anyone's pictures based on what I see here.

BTW, what setup are you referring to, shoturtle?

Hards80 Sep 19, 2010 11:24 AM

the colors and shots look good on my monitor Tulio.

the shallow dof you are referring to should really only be a big problem at close focusing distances, as long as you are reasonably far away for bigger subjects, you should have enough.

Tullio Sep 19, 2010 2:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hards80 (Post 1143548)
the colors and shots look good on my monitor Tulio.

the shallow dof you are referring to should really only be a big problem at close focusing distances, as long as you are reasonably far away for bigger subjects, you should have enough.

OK, now I know that the laptop monitor is no good. Thanks, Dustin.

Yes, as you move further way, the object becomes flatter. So basically, this lens should not be used for portrait shots at f1.7 unless all you want in focus is the eye.

Hards80 Sep 19, 2010 2:27 PM

you should be ok for portraits Tullio.

even if you are only 2 meters away, you still have a couple feet of depth of focus to work with. if you are going out to full body shots, you will be even further back, which will give you more than enough dof.

this is still only a 20mm lens, so the dof even at 1.7 is not that shallow at portrait distances. if you are doing a tight headshot, yea, you will need to stop down, but otherwise you should have enough to work with.

Hards80 Sep 19, 2010 2:34 PM

here is a couple example at 1.7, plenty of dof for this portrait

http://www.flickr.com/photos/neverch...31625832/meta/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sabesh/4488163474/

should give you an idea of what you will have to work with.

Tullio Sep 19, 2010 9:48 PM

Very nice indeed. Thanks for the links.

Greg Chappell Sep 20, 2010 12:13 AM

I actually like the shallow depth of field in those statue images. The areas of those pictures that are in focus were the right ones in my opinion.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:46 PM.