Depth of field for birds in flight – good or bad?

ByDMcA
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fs.studiobinder.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F08%2FWhat-is-Depth-of-Field-Aperture-Graphic.jpg%3Fresolution%3D1680%2C2&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.studiobinder.com%2Fblog%2Fwhat-is-depth-of-field-definition%2F&tbnid=uXxk1PTOEw07aM&vet=12ahUKEwj84vKPjOTtAhUBEGMBHfPCAUoQMygGegUIARC-AQ..i&docid=inoTq4sQiySY5M&w=1600&h=800&q=Depth%20of%20field%20definition&safe=strict&ved=2ahUKEwj84vKPjOTtAhUBEGMBHfPCAUoQMygGegUIARC-AQ

If you would rather head straight to a concise summary, the TL;DR is at the foot of the page — or jump directly to the FAQ.

Many camera enthusiasts see the wide depth of field (DoF) inherent to Olympus cameras, as a disadvantage. In my humble opinion, wide DoF is a positive advantage for landscape photography, for street, and above all, for birds in flight. Shallow DoF is mostly of use in portraiture, and there is no problem at all in achieving it with the Olympus system, particularly with the wonderful 75mm lens.

TL;DR
  • Olympus has 4× the depth of field of full-frame cameras when matching subject magnification and aperture (same effective f-number).
  • For birds in flight, this is an advantage: wider DoF means AF uncertainty tolerance is higher, missing focus is less critical.
  • Full-frame 2–3 stop shallower DoF requires tighter AF, faster shutter speeds, and more precision for keepers—opposite of what BIF photographers need.
  • If shallow DoF is desired for BIF (e.g., for portraiture of perched raptors), Olympus 75mm f/1.8 delivers f/3.6 effective (shallow for MFT) with 5-stop IBIS.
  • Wide DoF is often mischaracterised as weakness; for action and wildlife it is a structural advantage.

Back to the article.

Frequently asked questions

Why does subject magnification matter for DoF comparison?

DoF scales inversely with aperture and magnification. To compare systems fairly, you must match both. EM1x at 100mm f/2 produces 2× magnification at 50mm DoF. A9 at 200mm f/4 produces the same magnification and DoF. Comparing EM1x to A9 at 300mm f/4 is unfair—the A9 is at 3× magnification and shallower DoF.

Is wide DoF actually good for birds in flight?

Yes. AF uncertainty in continuous tracking = ±0.5–2mm focus error. With EM1x’s wide DoF, ±2mm error is invisible. With A9’s shallow DoF at equivalent magnification, the same error causes slight softness. Wide DoF tolerates AF jitter; shallow DoF amplifies it.

Can Olympus achieve shallow DoF if needed?

Yes. The 75mm f/1.8 lens on EM1x produces f/3.6 effective aperture at 1.5× magnification (shallow for MFT). Not f/1.8 equivalent full-frame shallow, but 1–2 stops shallower than the standard 100mm f/2 and sufficient for selective focus on perched raptors.

Does IBIS interact with DoF?

Indirectly. IBIS allows slower shutter speeds at lower ISOs; lower ISO improves shadow detail and simplifies post-processing. It does not change DoF itself, but enables shooting at smaller apertures (higher ISO penalty is lower).

Full-frame in crop mode: does it narrow DoF?

No. Crop mode removes pixels (e.g., A9 crop to 18MP); magnification is identical, aperture is unchanged, so DoF does not narrow—but signal-to-noise ratio degrades. Avoid full-frame crop mode entirely for BIF.

Back to the article.

Similar Posts

  • Noise on Olympus vs Sony cameras for birds in flight

    ByDMcA

    The EM1x’s sensor has 0.5–1 stop higher read noise than the Sony A9, but system-level noise — accounting for lens speed, IBIS, and in-camera processing — is within 0.5 stops at the ISOs relevant to birds-in-flight shooting. The comparison most people make is unfair: they compare the A9 with a fast prime against the EM1x with a matched prime, where the Sony gathers more light per pixel, and then attribute the cleaner result entirely to sensor size.

  • OM-3  – not just a hipster street camera?

    ByDMcA

    The OM-3’s new CP (Computational Photography) button consolidates every computational feature into a single dial-controlled menu, freeing up four programmable buttons and making the camera more usable than the OM-1’s eight-button setup in practice. Five named custom settings, a separate video mode dial, and a combined body-plus-six-lens kit weighing 1,287g — less than a single Sony 200-600mm zoom — make it, in my view, the best urban and travel camera available.

  • Sony Zooms vs the 600mm f4 Prime—comparative image quality

    ByDMcA

    Using standardised test data from The-Digital-Picture — the only widely available source with controlled lab comparisons of both the 600mm f4 GMaster and the wildlife zooms — the £12,000 prime shows minimal perceptible image quality advantage over the £1,600 200-600mm or the £2,400 400-800mm at 600mm. Independent numerical resolution data comparing exotic primes to wildlife zooms essentially does not exist, because manufacturers provide early samples to YouTube influencers rather than to test houses that might measure the difference.

  • OM5 custom settings explained

    ByDMcA

    The OM-5 has only one ‘hard’ custom setting on the mode dial (C), with three additional ‘soft’ settings (C2–C4) that can be recalled from buttons but are lost as soon as you press the Menu button — a behaviour that initially baffled me. The practical solution is to store landscape/base settings in C so they can always be recalled as a clean baseline, and use C2–C4 for specialist genres with the understanding that pressing Menu exits them.

  • Noise and DR roundup for Sony A9 and EM1x

    ByDMcA

    The EM1x’s noise at matched focal length and aperture is within 0.5 stops of the A9’s, and at ISO 3200 and above where birds-in-flight shooting actually occurs, the gap is negligible after standard denoising. The reason Olympus users perceive worse noise is usually that they are comparing against full-frame cameras with faster lenses — once the comparison accounts for matched apertures and magnification, the EM1x frequently looks cleaner in real-world files.

  • OM1 vs R5, A1 and Z8: which is the best all-round system?

    ByDMcA

    Testing the Canon R5, Sony A1, and Nikon Z8 paired with lightweight telephoto lenses at 600–800mm against the OM-1 and 300mm f4, none of the full-frame alternatives produced better BIF output — all three had worse net noise when the slower lens apertures were factored in, and most lacked pre-capture RAW or live exposure blinkies. The least-worst full-frame option was the Nikon Z7 or Z8 with the 500mm PF f5.6, which reached approximate noise parity with the OM-1 at 750mm in crop mode but still could not match the frame rate or pre-capture capability.