Micro four thirds and bokeh - no problem.

Bokeh - a Japanese word that refers to the quality of the out-of-focus areas in an image. The word is also commonly used to talk about the 'amount' of out-of-focus areas as much as the 'quality'. And the photographic community has gone absolutely bokeh crazy!

This obsession with producing out-of-focus areas (bokeh) in an image, is also what's fueling the full-frame sensor madness we find ourselves in. Because the bigger the sensor, the more bokeh you can create in your photograph. And, as we all know, the more bokeh your photo has, the better it is - right!? Full-frame sensors rule for bokeh, therefore everyone has to go full frame, or your images are going to suck! Apparently.

I don't want to start a conspiracy theory (honest), but the camera manufacturer's must love this train of logic. Not just because full frame cameras are (a lot) more expensive to buy, but also because the lenses required to produce the 'best' bokeh (the f1.2 and f1.4 types) are crazy expensive. I'll give you a 'for example'... 

The Canon nifty fifty 50mm f1.8 is a good, cheap lens, that at f1.8 produces some lovely bokeh. Brand new, the updated STM version of this lens is about $280.00NZ (as of June 2021). But why would you want f1.8 when you can have f1.4! The 50mm f1.4 Canon lens is currently $595.00NZ - that's more than twice the price. And, what's more, it's a notoriously poor performer wide open at f1.4 - so should probably be stopped-down to f1.8 anyway. But I digress.

Canon's RF 50mm f1.2L

F1.4 still not good enough for you (for some it's actually not)? Then you'll have to go for the ultimate 50mm Canon bokeh monster, the 50mm f1.2'L' lens. And why not? It's an absolute bargain at $2270.00NZ! I kid you not. Think that's crazy? Well how about getting the latest 50mm f1.2'L' for the mirrorless 'R' system. Got a spare $3800.00NZ!? Man, I knew photography was an expensive hobby, but that's kinda ridiculous in the extreme - don't ya think? 

But, if you're desperate for the most bokeh you can get, so that your photos are hip, trendy and cool, then the f1.2 is the must have lens for you. You can see why I think the manufacturer's are doing nothing to dissuade the 'bokeh is cool' argument.

I'm not picking on Canon. All the manufacturer's have similar offerings - for a similar price. Except the micro four thirds versions are considerably cheaper. The Olympus 25mm f1.2 Pro lens (50mm full frame equivalent field of view) is $1550.00NZ, a LOT less than half the price of the Canon RF lens.

Okay, okay - I can hear you screaming at me already. F1.2 on a micro four thirds system is not equivalent to f1.2 on full-frame, since you double the depth of field when using the smaller sensor (effectively). So it's more like f2.4 in terms of its rendering of bokeh. Okay - fair enough. My reply might go something like this.... "so what"? Really. So what? This desperate need to create bokeh in every image is just a trendy phase, just like every other trendy phase we've been through. 

But, more importantly, the f-stop value of the lens you have is only one factor that determines the out-of-focus rendering in an image. And it's actually not the most important factor. Ideally you need three components working together to create creamy bokeh. Focal range (telephoto is better than wide angle), subject to background distance (the further away the background the better), and finally aperture value (wide open on the lens is better).

Of those three, you could argue that the aperture value is the least important. If you have your subject placed flat up against a brick wall, and you photograph them with a wide angle lens at f1.8, then the bricks will still look like bricks. If, however, you move your subject 20 meters away from the wall, change to a 200mm telephoto lens, and set the aperture to a respectable f4, you'll have bokeh coming out your ears!

Why is this important? Well, it just so happens that probably the number one reason that people give for not trying the micro four thirds system, is because they've been told you can't get decent bokeh using it. In our current 'give me bokeh at all costs' climate, this is an immediate turn-off for anyone thinking about micro four thirds cameras. And yet in reality, it's complete nonsense!

Bokeh bird. E-M1 with Panasonic 45-150mm at 150mm. f/5.6 @ 1/200th

If the above photo of the seagull on a rock doesn't have enough creamy background bokeh for you, then you're a bit of a lost cause. There is background behind the bird, but it's about 2 miles away, and I placed myself carefully so as to have as few background distractions as possible. If you do this, then even f11 will give you background bokeh to die for! 

I do get that you can't always place your subject with a very clean background 2 miles away - but then again, you often do have some control over where you place your subject - especially with portraiture.

Above is a series of portraits taken on the Olympus OM-D E-M1 with a Panasonic Lumix 25mm f1.7 lens (it just happens to be the fastest lens I currently own). Josh, my son, is about 5 meters in front of the nearest trees in the background. You can see the background detail increasing as the aperture values decrease, which is to be expected. But, at f1.7 (or even f2.8), the background is sufficiently out-of-focus so that Josh 'pops' forward in the image. No - granted - it's not as out-of-focus as it would be with the same f-value on a full frame sensor. But it's also not non-existant in the way many would have you believe using micro four thirds!

Here's another one, this time with the Lumix 45-150mm lens at 100mm and 150mm focal lengths (200mm and 300mm full-frame equivalent). It's a cheap kit telephoto zoom, so only goes to f5.6 at its widest opening at 150mm. But even so, it still manages to create some background bokeh. 

Josh's distance to the background hasn't changed at all, but my position and field of view in relation to him has. And yes - again - it would be even better with a full frame sensor. But, it would also have been even better if I could afford the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 Pro lens and had shot with that at f2.8. That would create more than enough bokeh for me. And if I wanted even more, I would simply move Josh even further away from the background - which I could have done had I chose to do so.

Finally, here's a comparison with what I used to use with an APS-C DLSR, and what I have now with micro four thirds. And as you can see, they're not a million miles away from each other. In both images, subject to background distance is similar (which is why I choose them to compare).

I never felt inferior when using an APS-C DSLR (although some will still argue that even APS-C isn't 'good enough'), and I don't feel inferior using micro four thirds either. If you know how to create bokeh, then you can create it whatever system you are using.

If I was serious about bokeh (I'm not), then I would invest in some fast micro four thirds portrait lenses. Something like the Olympus 45mm f1.2 Pro or the Sigma 56mm f1.4. I may end up getting the smaller and lighter Olympus 45mm f1.8 one day, it's a cracking lens and can be picked up reasonably cheaply second-hand.

And yet for me - as a landscape photographer - the flip side of all this micro-four-thirds-can't-do-bokeh nonsense, is that I can get 'greater' depth of field using the same apertures as full frame sensors. And this is a huge benefit for micro four thirds. If f/5.6 on micro four thirds is the same as f/11 on full-frame (for example), then I can let in more light by staying at f/5.6, not have to boost my ISO as quickly when the light begins to fade, and get as sharp, if not sharper results.

In the end, you need to decide what is important for you in your photography (don't let anyone else tell you), and maybe even more importantly, how much you're prepared to pay to achieve it! If you absolutely love the bokeh look, are mainly a portrait photographer, and want smooth, creamy backgrounds to be your style, then get a full frame camera and a whole series of f1.2 lenses. But don't ignore the other two factors in the blurry background equation. And make sure you nail focus at f1.2, or you will have some disappointed clients.

If, however, bokeh is only something you want/need to achieve occassionally, and you still don't mind having a hint of the background environment rendered in an image, then you can totally achieve this with micro four thirds. Heck, if you want creamy backgrounds that look like soup, you can achieve this with micro four thirds - with the right lens, and more importantly, the right technique!

So, while micro four thirds may not be the absolute best choice to achieve the bokeh look, it's not a no-go either. And yet all these camera reviewers and 'influencers' immediately dismiss the system because you "can't get decent bokeh". What a load of bokeh balls!