Ansel Adams used a 10' x 8' view camera for a lot of his work. The "standard" lens for something like that is 300mm. You probably now understand why he formed the f/64 club! Contrast this with the 25mm standard lens on m4/3. A 300mm lens at f/64 on a 10x8 camera is roughly equivalent to a 25mm lens on a m4/3 camera at f/8. This is why when I write about m4/3 used for landscape I often mention the depth-of-field advantage. As Jordan Steele rightly points out this is because with the smaller sensor you can use lenses that have more depth-of-field to frame the same picture. Its the crop that makes the difference.
So for the most part photographers have been constantly attempting to get the most depth-of-field at the lowest possible ISO. At least those who make a living selling their pictures do. I guess it is personal preference to a certain extent but I just don't like wide aperture images. I certainly don't find them artistic nor visually interesting. I can see a situation where needs must, but to go out and create images like that on purpose strikes me as pointless and the height of geekery. When someone has their portrait taken don't they have a right to expect the whole of their head to be in focus? Or do people like images of themselves with blurred ears? How many of us would buy a car if the pictures we see of it consisted of the front left headlight in focus and the rest of the image a dreamy mush? And how many of us would go on holiday to a hotel where the pictures consisted of close ups of twigs with limited focus for the actual place we would be staying in?
There is no denying that it does work to have something in sharp focus and a background somewhat softer, but I would argue the extremes of f/2 and below rarely offer us a view of the world that is either aesthetic or useful. Some might argue that it is of course, but I just can't see it. I'm much more interested in images that show their place in the world, that have some context and that have some connection with what we see with our eyes. To me limited depth-of-field pictures are just self-indulgence, often published and posted just to show what deep pockets the photographer has. There is nothing wrong with fast lenses, they can be very useful, and I would argue that fast lenses on m4/3 cameras are more useful than most, because they offer the ablity to gather a lot of light and the ability to render a decent amount of the subject in focus. I see both of these as advantages. And more importantly I see them as useful for creating photographs that are about whats inside the rectangle rather than what the camera / lens combination is able to do.
Finally bokeh. Now I really don't care about bokeh. I'm just not interested. All those pictures of creamy out of focus nothing just leave me cold, because thats what it looks like to me, nothing. If I want that I can walk around without my glasses on anyway. The last thing I want to do is look at a picture simulating my short sight!
As per usual if you have a view on this pop over to Google+ and air your thoughts. Maybe someone might like to post or link to an image that shows just what marvels limited depth-of-field can create. Who knows, I might even be convinced.
All original material on this blog is © Soundimageplus
Join the Soundimageplus Blog Readers Group at Google+
For comment and discussion - join me over at Google+