>be me>I asked Santa for a camera to make Youtube videos>he brought me an OM System OM-5 body (fuck him)Anyway, as I can't return the camera, I bought a second hand Panasonic zoom (12-35mm f/2.8) to shoot my videos with some nice lenses BUT...¡Rumors are true! No way to get a decent DOF/toneh with 2.8 in micro four turds.Question for M43 users: ¿Do you think can I get a decent subject separation and bokeh with f/1.4 lenses? I can spend 500 bucks and there is a Panaleica 25 1.4 and a OM-System 20 1.4. ¿Any of these two can be good for talking to camera videos?Thanks in advance.
>durr i need duh fast glasstelephoto range or just put the background further awaybetter yet stop being a tasteless blurwhore
>>4127919>Youtube videos>OM-5 body (fuck him)I don't get it. Isn't this precisely where these cameras shine? The sensor size is larger than 16mm cinema, which is more than enough for most uses.>I can spend 500 bucks and there is a Panaleica 25 1.4 and a OM-System 20 1.4. ¿Any of these two can be good for talking to camera videos?All you need for subject separation is a roll of backdrop paper. Save the money and use for that along with some good lights and most importantly a good audio setup. If you have something interesting to say I don't care if you shot it on a flip phone, as long as the sound is clear and free of any echos or other artefacts.In summary, stop being a bitch and git gud. Also stop using inverted question marks when writing in English.
>>4127929>telephotothis>>4127919wtf does greta thunturd have to do with photography?
>>4127919Don't listen to the naysaying faggots OP. Spend the money and get the gear santa should have brought. Sell that om-5 shit if you need to for funds.>>4127980Stop being poor.
>>4127919>12-35 f/2.8Well here’s the problem genius. Get a 12-35mm f/1.4 then you’ll be golden. Also very good is a inexpensive budget friendly 18mm f/0.9 with fast AF.
just get a 20mm 1.7>b-but zoomnah20mm
>>4127984Stop being a gearfag
>>4127929>>4127983>telephoto>put the background further awayTelephoto is not an option because I'm shooting in my room, so background is going to be 12 feet away from the lenses.
>>4127929>stop being a tasteless blurwhorePretentious anon, I'm not looking to die poor trying to be the next Tarkovsky, I just want to get more money with my Youtube channel.
>>4127980>subject separation is a roll of backdrop paperywnbaw
>>4127989>20mm 1.7Do you own that one? Do you get a noticeable DOF change when going from 2.8 to wide open? If the answer is yes, I'll get the OM-System 20mm 1.4(Subject is going to be 2/3 feet away from the camera and background 12 feet away)
>>4128150see>>4128141>I'm shooting in my room
>>4127919>20 1.4Too wide for a good dof and makes you look ugly>25 1.4Ok, but expensive. I would get Sigma 30mm f1,4
>>4128181>I'm shooting in my roomThat doesn't say much, I've been laying optic fibre in rooms bigger than my whole house.
>>4128597Look where you are. OP is obviously trying to blur out his piss bottle collection. A backdrop and some good light is definitely the right tool for the job here, not a bigger sensor camera or a wider aperture lens.
>>4128158>That doesn't say much>>4128158"Subject is going to be 2/3 feet away from the camera and background 12 feet away"
>>4128630>OP is obviously trying to blur out his piss bottle collectionYes, that's why OP is asking about wide aperture lenses. OP doesn't give a fuck about your retarded backdrop and your shitty lighting advice. I know this because I'm OP.
>>4128641Yeah I tend to ignore half of the thread and read only the last few posts
>>4128644No problem, I do that too.
>>4128147>I just want to get more money with my Youtube channel.If you think that more bokeh will help you, you are sorely mistaking.Buy a f/1.4 lens or change to another ecosystem.
>>4128690>sorely mistakingLike it or not, people like bokeh. Just look how the fake DOF effect is in every fucking smartphone camera. That's for a reason.Already have cheap but nice gear for audio and lighting, so I will spend some money on glass for the Oly.>Buy a f/1.4Yep, I'm getting the panny. I asked in a non-autist forum and they shared a website to simulate DOF. I think 25mm is the sweet spot to have the camera close enough to control what I'm recording and also avoid the face distortion of a wider lens. If I reach 100k I'll look for a bigger sensor. I only need 87k new subscribers. Kek
>>4128751Nobody gives a fuck about your blurry background. People aren’t going to start watching your bs because your unmade bed is blurry now. Try making a good video first.
>>4128771They already watch my videos retard, that's why I want to improve my setup.
>>4127989The 20mm 1.7 is one of my favorites m43 lenses for stills, but it's AF is barely passable in single mode outside of ideal light, and pretty noisy. On my GX85 I don't think I can even choose AF-C with it attached lmao, so don't choose it for anything but static shots if filming yourself.
>>4128940>20mm 1.7How is the depth of field with these lenses?>Subject is going to be 2/3 feet away from the camera and background 12 feet awayDo you think you can get a nice bokeh with these distances? One of my options was the new 20mm 1.4 from Oly/OMSystem. Do you thing that would be a nice choice?
>>4129080>Subject is going to be 2/3 feet away from the camera and background 12 feet awayEven at 1.4, you are not getting a nice blurry background at those distances. Not with m43. Maybe with some f0.95 lenses, but when using those manual ultra wide lenses keep a moving subject in focus is almost impossible.You could go full frame, but I think bokeh is overrated.You got a nice looking and very capable camera for free. Just enjoy it.
>>4129705>Even at 1.4, you are not getting a nice blurry background at those distances. Not with m43
>>4129705>Maybe with some f0.95 lenses
>>4129744>MFT has less blur than a phonelmao
>>4129854If you like fake bokeh, sorry to say it, but you have shit taste.
>>4129744why did mft need more ISO for the same exposure?
>>4129854Small sensor cameras are doomed with deep depth of field, but if you are a bokeh rat, you can always can use in camera focus stacking and you will get noticeable better bokeh results than the ones you get with a phone.>>4129916Anyway, as this anon said, you have a shit taste.
>>4129922Maybe because Sh1 has a different and more modern sensor, you can see there are differences too in the dynamic range of those frames.
>>4129965>doomed with deep depth of field,perfect for macro
>>4129982>perfect for macroM43, the bugman system
>>4129982You would think, but it's the same DOF and noise as a full frame camera closed down two stops and ISO increased two stops, so nothing is gained.It really only makes sense for video where you would have to use an ND filter on a full frame camera anyway. Which is incidentally where the four thirds format came from in the first place, being a television camera tube size, and also what OP is using it for, so I don't see the problem.
>>4130028>raise iso>same noiseIn your dreams maybe
>>4130082There is no such thing as a free lunch. Smaller sensors are going to have more noise at the same ISO.
canon fd 50mm 1.8+ chink speed booster (this is what I have, you can do this with any old washed up nifty fifty) ends up 70somethingmm 1.3?bokeh is insane, so are flares, so fucking hard to pull focus, dof is razor thin but I can stop it back down to like 1.8 and still have bokehI inherited the canon and the speed booster was $70 on ebay.
