Speaking of bokeh

It's terribly popular these days--suffering somewhat of a comeback,
what. I stumbled upon this article on the very thing (bokeh) at
Adorama this morning:
http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=academy&article=103006
Here's my favorite article on the subject, though:
http://www.pinnipedia.org/optics/bokeh.html

Niceparking@gmail.com

Re: speaking of bokeh

Great for portraits, though, where you really need to be at least 10' away
from the subject, ideally more.
Well there should be no "distortion" except aberrations or intended, such as
in a fisheye.
What is often described as distortion is a function of the subject to camera
distance and cropping. All a longer lens does is create a more magnified image
with the same perspective, which is then cropped by both the covering power of
the lens, but more so by the film/sensor format inside that.
Place a camera on a tripod and take a photo at 18mm and then at 54mm. On the
computer, reduce the size of the 54mm photo to 1/3 and then copy and paste it
over the 18mm photo and you'll see that the perspective is exactly the same.
When enlarged to the same print size, the original 54mm photo will need
viewing at 3 times the distance as the 18mm photo to get the same perceived
perspective.


Richard Polhill

Re: speaking of bokeh

Yes, he was talking about 35 mm cameras, but he didn't just shoot 35 mm
stuff.....He used a Rollei TLR a lot, and also a couple of different 4x5 cut
film cameras. the only 35 mm camera I remember him using was a Leica IIIf,
and while he preferred the 50 mm focal length, he did use other focal
lengths when they were called for. He died at the age of 80 in 1968. (Just
so you'll understand the era we are talking about.)


William Graham

Re: speaking of bokeh

Of course this has to be adjusted for the format being shot, your dad
was no doubt talking about a 50mm on a 35mm camera. With my 1.6 crop
factor I would need a 31.25mm be give the same photos.
And to an extent he is right but this is a fuzzy area and depends on he
size of the print and how far your are viewing it from. For an 8 x 12
inch print you would want to view it from 17 inches to have no
distortion, if the photo was shot with a 50mm lens on the 35mm camera.
If the photo was taken with a 45mm lens it would need to be viewed from
15 inches. It is unlikely anyone could look at a photo and tell you if
a 50 or 45mm lens was used.
I have just order a 28mm prime for my camera, which will be the same as
a 44.8mm on a 35mm camera, I think this lens will be what I mainly use
for inside shots. I have a 50mm, but it is just too long for most
inside shooting where you can't back up, given my 1.6 crop factor.
The "distortion" from longer lenses is a lot less noticeable then when
you go shorter. By the time you are to a 18mm lens things are getting
to look pretty odd. A 400mm lens on the other hand can produce an
image that look just fine.
Scott


Scott W

Re: speaking of bokeh

So did my dad, (who was a better photographer than I'll ever be)....He said
that any other focal length produced "distorted" pictures.......


William Graham

Re: speaking of bokeh

In this age of plastics and planned obsolescence, unless the zoom is a
pro zoom I doubt anybody would bother to add a tightening screw to
prevent zoom slippage. The old Kiron zooms (80-210 approx. and maybe
others?) had a "Zoom Lock" feature that if memory serves was more like
a switch than a scre but it served the same function of preventing zoom
slippage. Canon's current longer EF L zooms may also have the
equivalent of a zoom lock but I've been out of Canon gear for quite
some time, possibly it might be on the 100-400 L and 35-3?50 L and/or
other long range Canon zooms. By the way, to keep on topic, I've been
impressed with Canon's L lens (zoom and fixed) bokeh though I prefer
the Pentax glass for its color saturation, lack of flare (SMC coatings)
and liveliness/naturalness of color rendition - its "look" if you will.
The L lenses are just a whisker under the sharpness of the "old" Zeiss
(Contax SLR) lenses with the Contax/Zeiss even outdoing the Canon L in
the color saturation, micro contrast and bokeh departments. The Contax
N lenses (AF) were/are Humungous in size though built very well - pity
the system no longer exists... Digital, with few exceptions, leaves me
flat, grain or no grain I prefer the detail, richness and subtleties of
film. Hey, but that's just me, to misquote Catherine the Great "Let
them chomp on megapixels" :-).
P.S. - I love 50mm lenses, b/c no matter how you zoom them, they're
always locked on 50mm ;-).


Thebokehking

Re: speaking of bokeh

I've not had that trouble with the Aetna Rokunar 70 to 210 zoom I use with
both my Topcon and my Exa.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html


Starlord

Re: speaking of bokeh

I have found that most of my old glass has either zooms and/or focusing that
is either too loose or too tight. I think the manufacturers should put
friction adjustment screws on their lenses that allow the user to adjust
these two things. I don't take many pictures looking up or down, but when I
do, I have to hold the zooms firmly with my left hand.....:^)


William Graham

Re: speaking of bokeh

BIG SNIP
One of my Zeiss lenses had a loose housing and I had to get that Fixed
by Kyocera, Leica M4P body also had shutter problems that needed
repairing, Nikon lens needed repairing, its luck of the draw sometimes,
regardless of brand, no matter how well they're built...
If anything, they are
See above.
I was really not too familiar with
Understood.


Thebokehking

Re: speaking of bokeh

Yes....Well, another consideration in any expensive piece of machinery is
upkeep. People who own Ferrari's spend a lot of time in the waiting rooms of
repair shops, and their escapes from them aren't cheap, either. I don't
think the same is true of Leica and Zeiss lenses....If anything, they are
probably less likely to develop problems. I was really not too familiar with
the differences between Nikon, Canon, Minolta, and Pentax lenses......My
ultimate "decision" was chiefly determined by the fact that I already had a
Nikormat ELW, and three fairly good Nikors. So, I had little to gain by
switching brands......


William Graham

Re: speaking of bokeh

saturation/liveliness and micro contrast to be better than the
Nikkor/Nikon lenses but I use them both. Not all Zeiss lenses are
astronomically priced (at least for the used Contax range, I'm not so
sure about the ZF range) and are quite reasonable in price between
28-135mm. Leica is always (by my reckoning) expensive but one would be
a fool to spend new for them when so many are available at a discount
used...
There are other "compromises" - I find Pentax's lenses to have similar
bokeh to Leica, at least the sharpness of Nikon and better color
saturation and anti-flare characteristics relative to Nikon, not that
Nikon is particularly lacking in these departments, but for me, Pentax
does it better. And as far as I am concerned, the penax Limited lenses
are Leicas in sheeps clothing ;-)
P.S. - I prefer Toyatas (economically) to Ferraris and most other cars
but have yet to figure out a way to mount them to my Pentax MZ-S ;-).


Thebokehking

Content - speaking of bokeh
Found 29 post(s). Page 1 of 3
| 1 | 2 | 3 |










 
How To Get Rid Of Cellulite - Chip - Suchmaschinenoptimierung - Goldankauf Altgold Ankauf - Software Reviews
Photoshop questions