The Price of Bokeh

Chris R-UK · Mar 25, 2014

I think that we actually need a word to describe the quality of the out of focus areas of an image and "bokeh" is the only word that I know of that is widely used with that meaning.

The short depth of field capability of a lens can be derived mathematically from the focal length and f/ number, but the quality of the out of focus areas cannot be so derived and needs to be described in words, not numbers.

I suppose that the only alternative term would be "smooth transition focus" as used by Minolta/Sony for their 135mm f2.8 STF lens.

darklamp · Mar 25, 2014

Wayne Larmon said:
Bokeh is a Japanese word and does not translate to mean what you say it means.

It doesn't have to. English ( and all human languages ) often adopt words from other languages and use them in a way or give them a meaning which is not what he source language uses them for.

The Trekkie in me feels obliged to end with "We Are Borg. We will adapt."

Yes. It's been that kind of morning.

Wayne Larmon · Mar 25, 2014

nstam said:
first post, will never reply. compared way to many cameras within a silly context... i wish i could get my 5-8 minutes of clicking through replies to this topic

After responding several times in the thread, I agree with you. I think that the OP did a successful troll. "Troll" in the classic sense; not in the modern sense of "you said something that I disagree with."

The OP did one post and others (including myself) spent a lot of time debating the somewhat questionable premise of the thread.

So well played, OP.

Wayne

MediaArchivist · Mar 25, 2014

Agreed. I actually never understood what the OP meant to begin with

Just Mark · Mar 25, 2014

If the OP had only Used "narrow depth of field" instead of "bokeh" in the title and content, this thread could have stayed on subject.

KimBokeh · Mar 26, 2014

007peter said:
if you want both cheap price + FAST AF, again.....I keep coming back to the bulky DSLR.

Yes, some basic laws of optics and economics limit the size and price of a large sensor with wide aperture. Cheap, Fast, and Small: You can only pick two of the three. But we are getting a lot of technological progress.

I hope smaller cameras with phase detection autofocus will proliferate, like Nikon 1, Sony a6000, or the bulkier Olympus OM-D M1. Meanwhile the price of older model mirrorless cameras is starting to drop (Sony RX100, Nikon 1 J1, Olympus EP's). So while a DSLR may be the best cheap alternative now, that may change in a few years.

darklamp · Mar 27, 2014

[No message]

ShootMeAlready · Mar 27, 2014

I think that a key factor is the frequency of use for Bokeh. In a typical movie perhaps its used 20% of the time. Depening on your still photography gig, Bokeh could be as tasy as buffalo sweat. Sports photography ... isn't it about deep focus, freeze motion, and clarity (you want to see the fear in their eyes). How much is Bokeh worth when its barely used?

But just to weigh in on the FF flap vs Crop crap. Yes if you want to pay $3.5K for a Canon D5 MkIII + $4K on 1.2 to 1.4 L class lenses (18,28,35,50,85) you are free to. But compare the Bokeh on a canon 70D + Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 + Sigm 50mm f/1.4, Angels sing and heaven opens up on the creamy Bokeh, which runs you about 25% the cost as the FF flap. Even if you swap out the 5D MIII with a 6D, still we are now only talking about 50% the cost.

And for the pedantic linguists, I'm from Canada, and we say "Bok-Eh!"

Aberaeron · Mar 27, 2014

ShootMeAlready said:
And for the pedantic linguists, I'm from Canada, and we say "Bok-Eh!"

Is the exclamation mark compulsory in Canada? It would be cool if it was.

bosjohn21 · Mar 27, 2014

[No message]

bosjohn21 · Mar 27, 2014

sorry about the empty post. As far as I know the bokeh is a function of the aperture blads their shape and number and also some other lens design features such as number of elements and flare.

KimBokeh · Mar 27, 2014

[No message]

Alex Notpro · Mar 29, 2014

Thanks for doing the homework and posting this. My conclusion:

If you want shallow DOF and money is tight and size/weight is not important, DSLRs are still unchallenged.

If you want shallow DOF and money is no object and size/weight/quality are critical, nothing beats Micro Four Thirds.

That leaves APS-C mirrorless in a tough spot: large/heavy and expensive.

TrapperJohn · Mar 29, 2014

Try as they may, no review site has really come up with a single, gearhead digestable number to indicate just what a given lens will deliver in your particular situation. You really have to use a lens to find out if it's what you want.

Just on the 4/3 end of things... the Oly 45 1.8 at $400 seems like a bargain compared to the Noctitron 42.5 1.2 at $1600. But... the 42.5 is a Leica lens, and delivers exquisite rendering. Is that worth another $1200? That's for the individual to decide. I've only seen a few shots from the 42.5, but it does appear to produce elements of 'the Leica look' that M owners pay so much to get.

That level of detail is like a fine wine. It's an expensive taste to acquire.

So, yes, cutting DOF is Not Cheap. Getting an exquisitely rendered photo is Not Cheap. Fast lenses are larger and heavier than slow lenses. And it's not just about cutting DOF, it's about the fine level of detail that the best lenses deliver... at a price.

Big surprise. It's not like that was true in film days.

Leonard Migliore · Mar 29, 2014

Chris R-UK said:
I think that we actually need a word to describe the quality of the out of focus areas of an image and "bokeh" is the only word that I know of that is widely used with that meaning.

The short depth of field capability of a lens can be derived mathematically from the focal length and f/ number, but the quality of the out of focus areas cannot be so derived and needs to be described in words, not numbers.

I suppose that the only alternative term would be "smooth transition focus" as used by Minolta/Sony for their 135mm f2.8 STF lens.

Right. We already have a word for blur. It's "blur".

bosjohn21 · Mar 29, 2014

if you want shallow depth of field and money is not object and you wont some lenses with bokeh then you best choice is a Leica M and pick a lens say noctilux or summilux and some of the older lenses are said to have goo bokeh

ultimitsu · Mar 29, 2014

Alex Notpro said:
If you want shallow DOF and money is no object and size/weight/quality are critical, nothing beats Micro Four Thirds.

Not really. for when you get to DOF equivalent of F1.9 on FF, mft package is just as heavy and big, while has much lower IQ. compare 6D with 85/1.8 vs EM1 with 42.5/0.95.

aramgrg · Mar 30, 2014

ultimitsu said:
Alex Notpro said:

If you want shallow DOF and money is no object and size/weight/quality are critical, nothing beats Micro Four Thirds.

Click to expand...

Not really. for when you get to DOF equivalent of F1.9 on FF, mft package is just as heavy and big, while has much lower IQ. compare 6D with 85/1.8 vs EM1 with 42.5/0.95.

Agree, m4/3 is not for those who appreciate bokeh, it can be used for everyday photography, and has a decent quality, but to squeeze bokeh from it, you need to invest a lot. For instance 6d+ 24-70 vc Tamy cost around 2500, but you can never beat it with any m4/3 setup. Even if you try, it will cost you even more than FF setup. APS-C is much competitive in that area.

Jim Salvas · Mar 30, 2014

Shallow DOF, while used throughout the history of photography for creative effect, has not until recently been the main objective. Instead, photographers mainly struggled with how to achieve DEEP DOF.

Witness, for instance, the Group f64 school of photographers which included Adams, Weston and Cunningham. These photographers sought a sharply-focused style in reaction to the blurry, dreamy pictorial school which preceded them, a style more made necessary by the very slow emulsions of that earlier time.

Or, consider the great cinematographer Gregg Toland, who pioneered deep focus techniques in Citizen Kane, setting a style for many to follow.

Of late (and by "of late" I mean in the last decade or so), deep focus has been incredibly easy to achieve because of the small sensors of the most prevalent digital sensors. Even the simplest Sony Mavica had incredible DOF.

So, mainly because what was once so desirable has become so easy, we've decided to make it harder for ourselves and to insist on shallow DOF in almost every instance. Not just sometimes. Always. And, we make it a primary factor in choosing a camera.

Topsy turvy.

ImageAmateur · Mar 30, 2014

darklamp said:
Grab a used Canbon 250D and a used 50mm f1.8 if you want lots of OOF.

Or a used D5100 and a used 35mm f1.8.

Or any used Pentax DSLR and any old manual K-mount fast 50mm.

Or any used Sony NEX model and a dumb adapter and any cheap fast 50mm the dumb adapter can use.

So your premise is faulty. You don't need to spend a lot.

Correct, some wonderful, wonderful images on MF Lenses dot com (site or facebook), using Canon's. Pentaxes, Nex and old MF lenses of all makes and focal lengths.

The Price of Bokeh

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

New member

New member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

New member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts