Checking the popularity of the thread (which is way too long and at the same time off the track), I really can't believe this! There are very knowledgable members here but when it comes to fights like Nikon vs. Canon it always gets messy...
BC, you have a decent technical knowledge about digital phtography. How come you can say that Canon lenses generally have better bokeh than Nikon lenses? This is really unbelievable. Every lens has it's own characteristics and you know that the characteristics of bokeh depends on many criterias (not only the lens itself; but sensor format, lightness and colors etc...). "Smooth transitions" you say... This highly depends on the focusing distance and the distance from the focused point towards background. And within this focused and background distance, the creamy transition highly depends on where you put the OOF subject. The color tonality in the background also effects the smoother nice look. Apart from these, there are spherical aberations which may even differ for the same lens model from sample to sample. They have a great effect on smoothness also. Usually, lenses are not perfect, they're spherically under or over corrected. This means it is rare to find a lens with pleasent background showing the same performance in foreground. So, how could the statement of yours can be quantified and generalized and also can be considered as valuable in such a forum by showing some sample photos?
I don't know who wrote it but something like this was written above "thanks god different lenses have different characteristics in terms of bokeh"... Please live with this.
Serkan
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
03-05-2011, 03:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-05-2011, 03:02 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1299330026' post='6526']
Checking the popularity of the thread (which is way too long and at the same time off the track), I really can't believe this! There are very knowledgable members here but when it comes to fights like Nikon vs. Canon it always gets messy...
BC, you have a decent technical knowledge about digital phtography. How come you can say that Canon lenses generally have better bokeh than Nikon lenses? This is really unbelievable. Every lens has it's own characteristics and you know that the characteristics of bokeh depends on many criterias (not only the lens itself; but sensor format, lightness and colors etc...). "Smooth transitions" you say... This highly depends on the focusing distance and the distance from the focused point towards background. And within this focused and background distance, the creamy transition highly depends on where you put the OOF subject. The color tonality in the background also effects the smoother nice look. Apart from these, there are spherical aberations which may even differ for the same lens model from sample to sample. They have a great effect on smoothness also. Usually, lenses are not perfect, they're spherically under or over corrected. This means it is rare to find a lens with pleasent background showing the same performance in foreground. So, how could the statement of yours can be quantified and generalized and also can be considered as valuable in such a forum by showing some sample photos?
I don't know who wrote it but something like this was written above "thanks god different lenses have different characteristics in terms of bokeh"... Please live with this.
Serkan
[/quote]
Why is it so strange for me to say this? It is ridiculous to claim that all lenses have the same quality of bokeh, right? Some lenses, like a certain 90mm from Leica and a certain 35mm from Zeiss, truly have a bokeh quality that stands out.
What you are right about that often, when a lens shows less desirable background bokeh, it may do better with foreground bokeh. good example, in my view, is the Nikon 85mm f1.4 G, actually. Very smooth foreground bokeh.
But, alas, what usually is valued as much more important is background bokeh. simply because most photos have a background, and foreground subjects tend to blur more anyway.
You point out that different distances make for different blur, of course it does. But the amount of blur is NOT what smooth bokeh is about. It is about smooth transitions between different elements, structures and colours.
And simply, some lenses do better than others. I know many in this thread aremaking it out to be a fanboy battle, I on the other hand am just saying what I have noticed from seeing many images, it is way less subjective than a lot want to make it out to be.
I have noticed the unattractive bokeh of the new 85mm f1.4 G at its very introduction. Same with the 35mm f1.8 DX, I was amazed on just how not smooth, and double image/line creating, its bokeh can be. The 200mm f2 VR... same, I never saw it being "smooth" besides it of course blurring a lot at f2 and at 200mm.
You do also not have to be a fanboy of any brand to see what the bokeh of the old and new 50mm f1.4 from Nikon is like.
I just look at images, and I convey the impression I get. Nothing more, nothing less. That some Nikon owners have huge problems with that, I can not change.
I am not in the position to make more scientific comparisons between equivalent lenses, which I do not own. So, there will always be room for Nikon fanboys to flame me and to accuse me of just writing nonsense just for the sake of being a "canon fanboy". Such is online-life.
Sp you may agree, disagree, or be indifferent. You may also disagree with others who rate the bokeh of certain Nikon lenses not very highly. All fine to me, but my opinion is not entirely baseless.
BC ,friendly observation, I think all too often you forget the "In my opinion" preface to a statement and therefore you aften are perceived to make general statements assumed to have universal values, when all yo are doing is giving only your personal opinion. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' /> I think you could change the "fan boy" perception by adding the above mentioned limitation to your statements and all would be happy <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> Kindly VL
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1299346030' post='6533']
BC ,friendly observation, I think all too often you forget the "In my opinion" preface to a statement and therefore you aften are perceived to make general statements assumed to have universal values, when all yo are doing is giving only your personal opinion. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
[/quote]
From all those posts, it seems to me that he really thinks that he's stating facts, not his opinion.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1299337229' post='6529']
...
You point out that different distances make for different blur, of course it does. But the amount of blur is NOT what smooth bokeh is about. It is about smooth transitions between different elements, structures and colours.
...
[/quote]
To my knowledge, the "amount" of bokeh (or blurriness), depends highly on the size of the aperture. The subject-to-background distance also has an effect but mainly on the near side (sure with shorter FLs, after a certain distance in background, the amount of blur almost does not change). I believe the correct amount of blur helps with the "smooth transitions", but it's not the only factor. There's color tonality and harmony, brightness and most importantly "spherical aberrations" (spherically under-corrected lenses claimed to have pleasent background blurriness with smooth transitions). And when we're talking about "spherical aberrations" (or positive focus shifts / undercorrected aberrations), we have to consider the possibility that at the same lens line this can change from sample to sample.
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1299346030' post='6533']
BC ,friendly observation, I think all too often you forget the "In my opinion" preface to a statement and therefore you aften are perceived to make general statements assumed to have universal values, when all yo are doing is giving only your personal opinion. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> I think you could change the "fan boy" perception by adding the above mentioned limitation to your statements and all would be happy <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> Kindly VL
[/quote]
That sums it up quite nicely.
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1299353023' post='6538']
To my knowledge, the "amount" of bokeh (or blurriness), depends highly on the size of the aperture. The subject-to-background distance also has an effect but mainly on the near side (sure with shorter FLs, after a certain distance in background, the amount of blur almost does not change). I believe the correct amount of blur helps with the "smooth transitions", but it's not the only factor. There's color tonality and harmony, brightness and most importantly "spherical aberrations" (spherically under-corrected lenses claimed to have pleasent background blurriness with smooth transitions). And when we're talking about "spherical aberrations" (or positive focus shifts / undercorrected aberrations), we have to consider the possibility that at the same lens line this can change from sample to sample.
[/quote]
Bokeh is NOT the amount of blur. Nor the shape of highlights. Bokeh is the CHARACTER of the blur. Only that. The pleasantness. The aesthetic quality of the blur.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1299408160' post='6548']
Bokeh is NOT the amount of blur. Nor the shape of highlights. Bokeh is the CHARACTER of the blur. Only that. The pleasantness. The aesthetic quality of the blur.
[/quote]
With respect, Puxvida has not defined bokeh as the amount of blur anywhere in the above post: he merely stated "to my knowlege [the amount of blur is dependent on aperture size]", which is correct. Aperture degree/shape also affects the shape of the highlights, which is a factor of the quality of the bokeh: ergo, it affects the bokeh.
You can also affect bokeh by using a star-shaped paper cutout.
It is linguistically incorrect for you to claim that bokeh is "the pleasantness" of the blur, since pleasantness is a subjective attribute - it would be a bit like claiming that the word 'taste' defines the pleasantness of a particular food.
Sorry to have to say this, BC, but I have the impression you often only post on this forum to belittle other people or to prove you are right. In my opinion that is rather antisocial.
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
[quote name='Pinhole' timestamp='1299411810' post='6549']
With respect, Puxvida has not defined bokeh as the amount of blur anywhere in the above post: he merely stated "to my knowlege [the amount of blur is dependent on aperture size]", which is correct. Aperture degree/shape also affects the shape of the highlights, which is a factor of the quality of the bokeh: ergo, it affects the bokeh.
You can also affect bokeh by using a star-shaped paper cutout.
It is linguistically incorrect for you to claim that bokeh is "the pleasantness" of the blur, since pleasantness is a subjective attribute - it would be a bit like claiming that the word 'taste' defines the pleasantness of a particular food.
Sorry to have to say this, BC, but I have the impression you often only post on this forum to belittle other people or to prove you are right. In my opinion that is rather antisocial.
[/quote]
With little respect ( <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' /> ), you seem to have a problem reading. Or on purpose misquote Pixavida.
What he actually stated:
"To my knowledge, the "amount" of bokeh (or blurriness), depends highly on the size of the aperture."
The amount of bokeh. Which he then equals to "blurriness".
Bokeh very much IS the quality, the pleasantness of OOF transitions/blur. It has nothing to do with the amount of blur. That you apparently do not know what the term bokeh in photography stands for is fine, but don't then come here and tell me I am wrong in what I wrote.
What all this has to do with that one can change the shape of highlights by some silly kindergarten cut outs is not clear to me.
genotypewriter
Unregistered
[quote name='Pinhole' timestamp='1299411810' post='6549']
With respect, Puxvida has not defined bokeh as the amount of blur anywhere in the above post: he merely stated "to my knowlege [the amount of blur is dependent on aperture size]", which is correct. Aperture degree/shape also affects the shape of the highlights, which is a factor of the quality of the bokeh: ergo, it affects the bokeh.
You can also affect bokeh by using a star-shaped paper cutout.
It is linguistically incorrect for you to claim that bokeh is "the pleasantness" of the blur, since pleasantness is a subjective attribute - it would be a bit like claiming that the word 'taste' defines the pleasantness of a particular food.
Sorry to have to say this, BC, but I have the impression you often only post on this forum to belittle other people or to prove you are right. In my opinion that is rather antisocial.
[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh
GTW
|
