The greatest myth in Micro 43 and everyone gets it wrong

Buy Me a Coffee - paypal.me/Bria...
Become a Patron of the channel at Patreon for extra content and privileges
/ thatmicro4thirdsguy
Video shot on Lumix G100 & Lumix 12-32 f3.5-5.6
Any views expressed on this video or any other videos on this channel are purely my opinion and are not to be taken in any way as formal or professional advice.
Olympus Firmware page
cs.olympus-ima...
Panasonic Lumix Firmware Page
av.jpn.support...
HUGE THANKS TO MY PAYPAL SUPPORTERS
Title Music: Country Cue 1 by Audionautix is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution licence (creativecommon...)
Artist: audionautix.com/
#microfourthirds #olympus #lumix

[@keirwatson3570]

If you want more bokeh there are actually four factors: (1) use a bigger aperture (lower f-stop) (2) use a longer focal length (3) get closer to your subject (4) increase the distance between subject and background. I photograph flowers and manage to get great bokeh with lumix 35-100mm f4-5.6 by shooting close to my subject despite being at f5.6. Technique (3 & 4) are almost more important, as going lower than f1.4 will leave little of your subject in focus. That’s why I look for lenses with good close focus ability over low f-stop. Another mft advantage is that longer focal length lenses are so much cheaper than ff equivalents, beating ff for subject separation at any given price point.

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

Spot on

[@ianparr1533]

I'll second that "spot on".

[@williamhamblen3808]

With a micro 4/3rds camera and a full frame camera at the same distance from the subject (to get the same perspective), a 25mm lens on the Micro 4/3rds camera and a 50mm lens on the full frame camera (to get the same field of view) and enlarging the images to get the same final print, you do need open the aperture of the lens on the micro 4/3rd camera twice as much as the aperture of the lens on the full frame camera, to get the same relative blur of the background. Here's the math: You can get a numerical value for the size of the blur circle from a out of focus point of light at infinity when the lens is not focused at infinity using the thin lens formula: 1/f = 1/u + 1/v f is the focal length of the lens, u is the distance from the lens to the object and v is the distance from the lens to the image. When u is infinite 1/f = 1/v (the distance from the lens to the image is equal to the focal lens of the lens). You could express 1/v as 1/(f + e), with e being the distance the image moves as you focus on objects closer than infinity. With a little algebra you can derive a formula for e as e = f^2 / (u - f) The amount of blur you get for an out of focus distant object is b = e / N where N is the focal ratio of the lens. Finally, the blurriness of an image can be characterized as the ratio of the out of focus blur to the tolerable circle of confusion (c). Let's use BR to stand for "bokeh ratio." BR = b / c Putting the formulas for e, b and BR together we get BR = f^2 / ((u - f) * N * c) Let's aim our cameras at a subject 3m (10 ft) away. We'll use a full frame digital camera with a 50mm lens set at f/2.8 and a Micro 4/3rds camera with a 25mm lens set at f/1.4. Full Frame f = 50mm u = 3,000mm N = 2.8 c = 0.03 BR = 50^2 / ((3,000 - 50) * 2.8 * 0.03) BR = 10 Micro 4/3rds f = 25mm u = 3,000mm N = 1.4 c = 0.015 BR = 25^2 / ((3,000 - 50) * 1.4 * 0.015) BR = 10 To get the identical amount of relative bokeh on a Micro 4/3rd camera you do need to open the aperture twice as much as on a full frame camera in this particular circumstance. By the way, the tolerable circle of confusion on a Micro 4/3rds camera has to be twice as small as on a full frame camera because the image has to be enlarged twice as much to get the same size print.

[@andrewbaxter9395]

I for one am not a bokeh person but my Sigma f1.4 lenses can obliterate backgrounds to the extent that you’d have no idea whats behind the subject. Same thing with telephoto primes. I also shoot 1”, apsc and full frame and it is indeed a myth that it can’t be done.

[@kennyadvocat]

I like that video look where everything is in focus. Too many KZbinrs film on full frame with the f stop wide open. Then only their eyes are in focus.

[@OpenFilmmaker]

I'm also a big M43 fan and I've owned 7 M43 cameras and right now have 5. They are hard to give up because of their amazing results. Nice video, keep them coming!

[@nickm8134]

I love MFT and many other cameras, and really enjoy your videos! Depth of field depends on 3 factors - focal length of the lens, aperture, and the distance from the camera to the point of focus. If you move the camera further away from the subject to compensate for the smaller sensor size, the increase in distance to the point of focus will increase the depth of field accordingly. If you move further away from the subject, you have to focus the lens closer to infinity to bring the subject back into focus. Now the background will be sharper than if you are close to the subject. Same thing expressed differently. The effect on depth of field will be the same as using a lens with a shorter focal length and maintaining the same camera to subject distance. The difference between the two approaches is the change in perspective. So, sadly, it is not a myth at all - just the laws of optical physics.

[@francoisleger287]

One more thing: you can also change the subject to the background distance... It's all a matter of choice!

[@grantmedical]

Allow me to make a slight nuance of a correction... "Bokeh" comes from a Japanese word that has come to refer to the QUALITY of the out of focus area in the final image... NOT the DEGREE of shallow depth of field... It is either pleasing or it is not... That being said in portrait photography at 85mm - I use my Panasonic-Leica 42.5mm and I still have to stop it down from f/1.2 to f/2.8 in order to get my wife's hair and nearest eye to both be in acceptable sharpness... So no! It is a myth that you need a lens for portraits that have less than f/2 on a Micro 4/3 (or any camera for that matter)!

[@chrisseeker1]

A 25mm mft gives equivalent of 50mm FF but with the dof of a 25mm, ie greater. Confusion arises over the focal length of the lens and the image captured. To get the dof of a 50mm FF on mft requires a 100mm mft lens. Obviously the field of view is quite different. A FF 50mm lens with adaptor gives 100mm field of view but dof of a 50mm. Good to have the confusion clarified.

[@chrisseeker1]

Good to see mft guy abandoning equivalence. It's a source of confusion and is unnecessary.

[@stuartriley]

Brian, I agree on DOF and aperture for a given focal length. If people want lots of Bokeh, then they want less depth of field and aperture is the means to do that. Thank you for debunking the mystery.

[@johnnysolstice8550]

My old adapted Olympus f1.7 from my 35mm camera on the Pen F produces excellent bokeh

[@trishf29]

Well explained, Brian, even though a complicated issue and I’ll have to watch it again to get it into my old brain! I tend to use apertures wide open, mainly for flowers, so always manage to get some sort of bokeh, which is what I like. If I use my 40-150mm f4 Zuiko, yes, it’s compressed, but it does contain pleasing bokeh, whereas my f2.8 gives me more.

[@dunnymonster]

I see micro four thirds " relative " increase in depth of field as a positive advantage sometimes, particularly in low light. If you shoot a group of people you are forced to close down your aperture to ensure sufficient depth of field to get all your subjects within acceptable focus. Its no good having the people at the front sharp and the rows behind all blurred. The problem is if you shoot such a scenario in very low light. Now you have a dilemma, you've been forced to stop the lens down but you also need to shoot it as open as possible to get as much light to the sensor as you can. Your only solution is add extra light ( flashes ) or ride the ISO. If you cannot add light you now have to increase ISO, often to unacceptable levels. Depth of field narrows considerably at wide apertures on full frame ( and even more so using medium format ). M43 has an advantage here, you can shoot at something like f1.2 and likely still get most of your subjects across all rows in focus. This is because your " equivalent " depth of field relative to FF is f2.4. You get all that f1.2 light without the depth of field penalty. Its important to understand that due to the smaller physical size of a M43 sensor the physical iris on a f1.2 M43 lens isnt the same size as a FF lens which is also f1.2. Like for like the iris in the FF lens would need to be twice the size. This is why FF lenses are way bigger ( and heavier due to the larger diameter lens elements ). A f1.2 lens is a f1.2 lens no matter what, ie it would present the same light intensity relative to the sensor, which is why exposure is identical no matter the sensor size. You'd get the same exposure reading at f1.2 ISO 100 @ 1/200th second no matter what format you use. Its the combination of the iris' physical size and the fact that different crop factors change how far you are from your subject that determines how much bokeh you get. You also have to take in consideration how far your subject is from the background too. Just being f1.2 in and of itself doesnt mean you'll get shallow depth of field. I could shoot a landscape at f1.2 with a 50mm lens and it would still look mostly sharp across the frame if that landscape was a long distance away. Alternatively I could have a f1.2 M43 25mm lens shoved right in somebodies face and get really shallow depth of field and loads of blur. Of course thats not how we shoot lenses in the real world is it 😋 You'll here that word " equivalency" a lot and for good reason. Understanding how crop factors change how we compose our images and how those changes combined with equivalent f stops change how our images look is important. Its the very basis upon how we utilise these tools ( our lenses ) to get the specific creative look we are trying to achieve. In closing, absolutely you can get blurry backgrounds using M43 and even your cellphone camera! There are some linitations that cannot be overcome however. There is no M43 equivalent made that could duplicate the exact look of say Nikons f0.95 Noct in terms of bokeh all other things being equal 🙂

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

Absolutely, spot on

[@chrisseeker1]

Well put.

[@markusstark8564]

I use m43 Camera because for filming shy animals you need usually long focal lenses and 2x crop is very helpful. With my Leica Apo Summicron f2/180mm and Metabones Speedbooster (= f 1,4/125mm) I get spectacular shallow dept of field on my GH6

[@jpsteiner2]

Great explanation!! And, yes, you can get "pleasing" background blur (bokeh) with MFT. Even without using super fast lenses. I was pleasantly surprised how nice the bokeh can be with a lens like the 12-45mm f/4.

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

Exactly!

[@piero_75]

To get the equivalent field of view of a 50mm lens on full frame, you'll need to be at 25mm on M43 - which is a smaller focal length, therefore giving a greater depth of field, which is not always wanted. To compensate you need an extra stop of aperture. I think that's the TLDR (too long didn't read) version of what you are saying!

[@chrisseeker1]

Extra stop. So f2.8 not f1.7, for example?

[@geekinthegarden3927]

Personally, I think that people ge confused because when talking about Mivro Four Thirds systems so many peple fall back to givingf 35mm equivalents, which has the effect of people not truly knowing the M43 system as they are trained to think about the full frame. A 25mm is not truly a 50mm full frame equivalent. It may give the field of view of a 50mm on ff but has the blur of the 25mm on m43. If people lessened their reliance on 35mm equiv and focused on the systems they were using it would become second nature to be able to picture in the mind the results of the lens. So yes, if from the same position I took a 25mm photo on m43 and a 50mm on ff the field of view might be similar but they are different lenses so will have different blurs. If I took 25mm on both and cropped the ff image so the field of view was the same as th m43 then the bur would also be the same. But if I'm talking about micro four thirds then I shouldn't keep bringing up full frame equivalents unless it was really needed.

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

The problem for me is the press and media. Everything is referenced to the great god Full Frame and tight bokeh and everything is seen as inferior.

[@geekinthegarden3927]

@@ThatMicro43Guy Yes, each system - medium fomat, full frame, APS-C, M43 an 1/2.3 - was it's own individual qualities which people should be looking at rather than comparing it to a hypothetical camera that people might not have. Some people have said that it's good for beginers so that they know what is being talked about - but that means they have to learn about format they don't have in order to know about the format they do - B6S.

[@castielvargastv7931]

Very true

[@williamsiviter8760]

Hi Brian, 300mm f4 - blur. Keep the great videos coming and common sense as normal.

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

Thanks, will do!

[@malcolmwright6948]

I get some very pleasing Bokeh using the Olympus 12-100mm F4, when photographing flower shows. I do get the whole flower head in focus, with the background out of focus. To get the same result in Full Frame I might be mistaken in thinking I'd have to stop down to F8.

[@mikevandebunt811]

An excellent explanation of the difference between crop factor and depth of field. It bothers me when so called "experts" insist that the 2x crop factor of M42 also affects the f/stop equivalent when it does not. I started in film photography with SLRs in the 1970s, so I remember the common names for different prime lenses: 50mm was "normal", 35mm was "wide angle", and 135mm was "portrait". Yes, a lot of portraits were shot with 90mm lenses, but 135mm was the "standard" portrait lens (which was also considered a "short" telephoto). I think that the prevalence of high quality zoom lenses is what has caused people to forget that you actually WANT a relatively long lens for portraits. (And phone cameras, with their wide angle lenses, have made portraits with disproportionately large noses seem like the norm...)

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

Oh yes, the selfie look or I I call it, the trout pout

[@mmartel]

@mikevandebunt811 Why do you say that 2x crop of m43 doesn't affect f/stop equivalent? f-stop is a ratio of focal length to physical aperture size. So if you have a 50mm lens at f2, the physical aperture is 25mm (focal length / f-stop = physical aperture). If you put that 50mm f2 lens set to f2 on a m43 camera or a full-frame camera, it's still a 50mm set to f2 with a 25mm physical aperture. But you won't end up with an equivalent photograph if you shoot that 50mm lens at f2 at the same distance to subject on a m43 and FF body. The field of view on the FF shot would be much wider than the m43 shot. (As a side note, although you're letting through the same amount of light through the lens when you snap the shutter, 3/4 of this light passing through the lens wouldn't fall onto the m43 sensor compared to the full frame sensor). If you cared to produce an equivalent field of view, depth of field, and amount of light hitting the sensor on both cameras for a given exposure time, you'd need a 25mm lens (for the same framing) with a 25mm **physical aperture opening** (since you need the same physical aperture to produce the same depth of field and light gathering). That means you need an f1.0 aperture setting (25mm physical aperture / 25 mm focal length = f1.0) on the 25mm lens to match the 50mm set to f2 on full frame. On the other hand, if you were instead to have your 25mm lens on the m43 camera set to f2.0 (matching the nominal f-stop setting on the 50mm f2 lens), now your physical aperture on the m43 lens would be only 12.5mm wide (25mm / f2 = 12.5mm). You'd end up with the same field of view on both cameras, but the depth of field on the 25mm set at f2 would be deeper relative to the full frame 50mm set to f2. Furthermore, the lens aperture is much smaller. Assuming you're able to capture 100% of the light passing through both lenses onto their respective sensors during exposure, m43 sensor would in fact capture just 1/4 of the light vs. the full frame sensor ((12.5mm/2)^2 * pi = 123 mm^2 vs. (25mm/2)^2 * pi = 490 mm^2 and 123/490 = 0.25). So while we can say f2 is f2 is f2 no matter what, it doesn't translate into the same physical aperture size. And if we're talking about light capture and/or depth of field for equally framed shots, a "2x crop factor" of the m43 sensor does indeed translate to roughly 2 f-stops difference relative to full frame.

[@mikevandebunt811]

@@mmartel you must not have watched the video. If you use the same lens on a full frame camera and a M43 camera, you will get the same depth of field at the same distance. You obviously don't get the same photo because of the crop, but if you crop the full frame image to match the M43 field of view you will get the same photo (With potentially a different number of pixels).

[@mmartel]

@@mikevandebunt811 Yes, I did watch the video. I put the point of this video in the "true but not particularly helpful and probably misleading" bucket of truths. But my problem isn't with the video, or even your second comment. It's this part of your original comment that I find problematic: "It bothers me when so called "experts" insist that the 2x crop factor of M42 also affects the f/stop equivalent when it does not. " Certainly the f-stop settings *do matter* if we're talking about is two equivalently framed, uncropped shots on two cameras using appropriate focal lengths so we have equivalent framing for a particular subject at a particular distance, and we're trying to ascertain which f-stop settings on each camera would yield equivalent light to be collected by each sensor and achieve similar perceived background blur*. In such case, the answer can be simplified to applying a crop factor to the f-stop. * Perceived background blur means "looks similar" when viewing uncropped final images at similar viewing distances. For examples, please see here: dofsimulator.net/en/?x=EH0AoQC2QAAIJE50AAADgAA

[@ddsdss256]

As you point out, for a given situation, if you can't get shallow DoF, it's not your gear--it's you. More to the point, extremely shallow DoF often looks ridiculous, unnatural, and gimmicky. It's far more valuable to be able to get deeper DoF--one of the many advantages of MFT. It's easy to get shallow DoF with MFT (especially with my 25mm f/0.95 (50 mm EFL), but I rarely open it up as the DoF's often too thin)! I even get plenty of blur from my Laowa 6mm (12mm EFL) when shot wide open (f/2) and close up. BtW, bokeh (a Japanese word most people mispronounce--it's "bo-kay" with no emphasis on either syllable: kzbin.info/www/bejne/j2Glo5looZ2MqcU) refers to the visual quality of the out-of-focus areas, not simply shallow DoF.

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

Thanks for that

[@sebastienmaloron1660]

In my experience distance to the subject is more important than aperture or focal length to get a shallow depth of field and I think that is why people think that micro four third is worse than full frame in that respect since we often have to step back to get the same field of view. The only time I felt limited compared to my previous camera (medium format analog) was for candid portrait when I could not influence the subject to background distance and wanted to deemphasize that background. Otherwise I think micro four third can provide all the shallow depth of field I need. One other factor with bokeh is the compression, when you have an longer focal length it is easier to have just a tiny portion of the background which simplify things and avoid clutter in your out of focus area. You can mitigate that by mastering the art of composition and use the background to give context instead of trying to make it disappear.

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

Totally agree

[@jembee7894]

I had some lovely bokeh when shooting red squirrels with the Oly 300 f4 lens this week at f4 so it definitely can be achieved 😊

[@RobertSquire]

I've never had a problem with the amount of bokeh from my M43 kit, but bokeh isn't really my thing. However, I also don't think you can call it a myth. Yes, the DOF does depend on focal length, aperture value, and distance to the subject. To be really clear and transparent about the limitation of M43 relative to larger sensors (where bokeh is concerned), you have to use field of view as a factor, (which you do) and state that you just can't get the same background separation on smaller sensors, because to get the same framing and perspective, you have to use a shorter focal length which results in deeper depth of focus.

[@katesavage2001]

Good food for thought.

[@avegaiii]

I’ve thought the same thing you just talked about and would always wonder why they try to make it more confusing than it really is. Either way I’m not a huge bokeh fan, I prefer to have more in focus

[@MrBillUp]

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Lens on MFT is absolutely superb for Bokeh. Anyone saying otherwise is off their dial... 🤡🤦‍♂ EDIT: I posted this comment about 3 minutes into the video, and at 5 minutes, low and behold, the same lens lol 😁👍

[@macallanvintage]

Bokeh is the only primary effect that makes an unedited JPEG image straight of out of camera, appear high-end and unmistakably captured with premium equipment, most possibly by an enthusiast or professional. Without bokeh, most of your casual snapshots would be very difficult to differentiate from those captured on any flagship smartphones. The real issue is NOT the comparison to APSC and FF. It is comparison of (M4/3 + APSC + FF) vs flagship smartphones.

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

Good point. And the flagship smartphones have such effective AI that they can produce amazing out of focus backgrounds without having such a shallow DOF that faces are out of focus on the nose and the back of the head

[@castielvargastv7931]

So so... Fashion photographers shoot atf 5.6, f8 and higher.. not much bokee.. phone look to you?

[@21upbowls]

I wish you would explain this to Tony Northrop who claims to be a professional but doesn’t understand this

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

I doubt he’d listen lol

[@spacelord1913]

What I don't understand is why depth of field changes with angle.

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

It doesn’t exactly change with angle, it changes with focal length but a shorter focal length gives a wider angle and a wider DOF hence why it is normally a shallower DOF from that of the FF equivalent field of view. With a crop sensor the lens doesn’t get narrower, it’s just that the sensor is only recording a small part of the image produced by that lens

[@mikenofi281]

Great explanation. You made DOF easy to understand without going to the whiteboard. In addition to aperture and focal length, doesn’t the subject distance play a factor in determining DOF?

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

@@mikenofi281 it certainly does which is why to get the same field of view with the same lens at the same aperture you need to be twice the distance away on MFT compared to FF. thus making the distance to the subject further and the ratio between the subject distance and the background distance change. That’s why there really is no direct equivalence.

[@gracenotes5379]

A full-frame camera with a 50mm focal length lens at an f/5.6 aperture has the about the same depth-of-field _and_ angle-of-view as a M43 with 25mm at f/2.8. However, the M43 camera is probably wide open at f/2.8 and has nowhere to go if narrower DoF is desired, whereas the FF camera at f/5.6 has quite some scope to open up. We can't afford to ignore the angle-of-view. Consequently, the "myth" has some practical implications in the real world after all.

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

But that’s the point I’m making, you are not comparing the same things, you are comparing different focal lengths to create the same field of view it creates differences is not only DOF but also compression. In reality at the same focal length there is no difference other than being cropped. Using the same focal length but moving twice the distance away from the subject still does not give the same effect as the difference in distance from the camera to subject to background is now a different ratio which again isn’t comparing like for like. The trouble is that cameras of different sensor sizes will never reproduce a photo in exactly the same way as each other and as such MFT cameras are a style of their own. The only way they’ll ever give the same look is by cropping a larger sensor in to the same size as a smaller sensor. I make the point in the video that medium format is again different compared to FF. when I started FF or 35mm was considered inferior by the press and the industry in the same way MFT is today but the same physical rules apply, a FF doesn’t have less DOF than MF when using the same lens. Strange how FF isn’t considered inferior now…….now that the big corporates want you to spend your money on that format. It’s all hype.

[@gracenotes5379]

@@ThatMicro43Guy "...when using the same lens." But, of course, you won't be using the same lens in most practical situations; e.g., backing off to twice the distance to compose the shot is not typically an option. The point I'm making is covered in your video, so I don't think we have a technical disagreement. I happen to own exclusively M43 camera gear, but that doesn't stop me recognizing certain limitations of the format, as well as its advantages.

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

@@gracenotes5379 yes, I think you are right, we are in agreement just approaching from different angles. I think my issue really is with the marketing and the incorrect perception propagated in the media.

[@jmtphotographymedia]

If wise people would listen this as they should they would realize M43 and sensor in general doesn't mean much. Distance does. #nevergoingfullframe

[@castielvargastv7931]

Like most Portrait qnd studio fotographers i shoot at 2.8 to 4.0 , in full frame world this would be 5.6 to f8. Not much bokee, not much bokee wanted but both eyes and the nose are in focus😂😂

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

Very similar to me. I found when I was using my Canon 5Dii when using my 85mm for upper torso portrait shots at around 2M from my subject 90% would be at either f5.6 or 6.3. On my g9 or EM1 with my 45mm in similar situations I’m about the same as you.

[@castielvargastv7931]

@@ThatMicro43Guy ja real life usage often is very different to what looks good on paper.

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

@@castielvargastv7931 99% of the time it is in my opinion. Irrespective of pre planning I’ve had so many times where situations have changed, lighting, shooting space, equipment failures and a whole lot more can take a photographer away from the ideal and clients don’t want to hear why you cannot do the shoot so often you’ll have to use some very different setups from the accepted norm and get the desired results.

[@marcel9568]

If I step further away with a m43, will the depth of field change, comparing to my previous position?

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

Yes because you are further away from your subject now and the ratio between your distance to your subject and your subject to the background has also changed

[@marcel9568]

@@ThatMicro43Guy Thanks.

[@williamsiviter8760]

Thanks

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

Thank you for your support of the channel

[@pawelbrzozowski3899]

It's no myth nor misconception. With equivalent field of view lens ( for example at f/1.8 - 17mm vs 35 mm 25 vs 50, 50 vs 100, standard kit lens etc..) you can get significantly less depth of field on a full frame. It's an obvious fact. And what you have said about mft being better for landscapes (due to wider depth of field I assume) is absurd. On larger formats you can simply stop down on the aperture (and the opposite thing is not possible on mft) while retaining resolution and dynamic range advantage.

[@thomasa.243]

Well, it is a misconception because people are mixing up focal length with field of view. A 35mm lens is a 35mm lens regardless of the format but the field of view will change depending on the sensor size. It is easier to get a "creamy bokeh" with a larger focal length. And since 100mm on full frame will give you the equivalent field of view of a 50mm on MFT, by design, you will get more bokeh on the full frame. To get the same bokeh of a 50mm as on the 100mm, you can open up one stop, if possible...

[@ThatMicro43Guy]

Out of curiosity did you actually watch the video? The whole point is that the DOF (and the compression) at the same aperture and the same distance from subject on the same focal length lens is the same irrespective of the format, it’s only the field of view which changes the myth is that there is a difference in the DOF. The issue is that because the sensor is only picking up 1/4 of the frame (with respect to FF) we are not able to see as much and so to see an equivalence at the same distance from subject we would need a wider lens to a factor of 2 and because a wider lens has a wider DOF we get the. Lesser bokeh effect. On the wide DOF end yes you can shut down but again most modern lenses won’t shut down beyond around f22. As above a lens at the same distance from subject at the same aperture (f22) with the same focal length will give exactly the same DOF but to get the same angle of view a MFT camera uses a focal length of half and that gives an effective DOF increase so no, it’s not absurd it’s comparing like for like. The variable here is angle of view. Nothing more, nothing less. Simplest way to prove it, put a 50mm f1.8 lens on a FF camera and a 50mm f1.8 on a MFT, stand 2m away from a subject and take a photo, do the same with the MFT camera. Then I’m post crop into the FF image to produce the same sized shot as the MFT. Voila…identical DOF, identical photo.

[@sdegio70]

Stopping down is not for free, you have to increase shutter speed or iso, in the first case you may need a tripod in the second you sacrifice the advantage on noise and dynamic range from the bigger sensor. 800 iso on FF is similar to 200 iso on MFT in terms of noise and DR.

[@pawelbrzozowski3899]

@@sdegio70 Yes, you are correct. Still, mft have absolutely no advantage.

[@sdegio70]

Absolutism is never good, the most common situation for non professional photographer are the ones in which MFT can compensate the perceived weakness, in this situation is a limited pov to say that MFT has no advantages over FF, as also FF in those situations has advantages but once we consider size and weight of gears (camera, lenses, tripod) MFT has an advantage if someone doesn't want to carry the burden of FF gears. While for specific corner cases FF has an advantage a photographer may not be interested in or simply he accept the limitation because he doesn't want to carry kilos around, it's not a pleasure, unless you are professional and live with it.