Poor Bokeh on Olympus zooms - I think not (Andy Rouse)

Gary from Seattle said:

Messier Object said:

x

Gary from Seattle said:

Yet your examples made no such point - just lousy backgrounds on shots that one would not have taken anyway......

Click to expand...

Taken or not taken, the aesthetic compositional aspects of the images are irrelevant to how the lens renders the out of focus elements.

I see plenty of images posted to this forum - images which the users took deliberately - which display horrible out of focus backgrounds

Just yesterday there was an image of a Pelican in flight captured with the 300mm F4.
Did you see it ?

here
EM1X Bird Detect BIF experience: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

It's a very nice image of the pelican - well framed, good wing position, well exposed, and in focus.

The photographer did everything just about right as I see it

But have a look at the nervous rendering of the grass in the background.
The lens did that, not the photographer.

But the Olympus apologists would say - "oh but he should have waited until the bird was clear of the background", or "he shouldn't have taken the image in such harsh light", or "he should have sat down on the ground to take the bird from a different angle".

Click to expand...

That is not it at all. One may well take such an image - with any camera or brand. If well done the bird will be sharp; the background will remain junk.

Click to expand...

I don’t get junky background like that with my birding lenses, 4/3 or FF

Gary from Seattle said:

I saw that immediately without opening it to full size. How good the junky background is is a poor metric for lens quality.

Click to expand...

i think it’s a completely valid metric, as do others

Gary from Seattle said:

It is still a junky background. Would i shoot the shot sure, but I would grade it 3*, not 4* or 5*. The shot I showed of the Bittern is maybe 2*; a later image 3*.

Click to expand...

Your gradings are a personal matter for you

Gary from Seattle said:

It won't win any awards; not the photographer's fault. It just is. So be it. A perfectly done and composed shot of a toilet seat with fantastic Bokeh is still a shot of a toilet seat.

Click to expand...

If you are a commercial photographer with a plumbing supplier as your client a good image of a toilet seat may be what you’re being paid for :-D

Gary from Seattle said:

Bokeh is irrelevant on a mediocre shot. How a lens renders a good subject and background is an entirely different matter.

Click to expand...

I would judge the pelican shot to have both good subject and good background. The lens did an excellent job on one and something different with the other

Gary from Seattle said:

Gary from Seattle said:

Peter

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Messier Object said:

I’m not sure how “bokeh” is relevant to Andy’s video.

He’s highlighting what he considers to be his best/favourite images of 2020. Why would we expect to find “poor bokeh” or out of focus, or excessive noise or any other undesirable quality in his best images ?

He’s an excellent photographer, but like the rest of us he probably deletes images that don’t meet his quality criteria. We don’t get to see those images, but that doesn’t mean that his equipment sometimes fails to deliver for him.

Poor bokeh on Olympus zooms - I think that Andy has seen his share.

Peter

Click to expand...

You are coming across as being very determined to be in a "glass is virtually empty" sort of rut on this subject.

I would bet virtually EVERY lens ever created can have ugly bokeh in SOME circumstances Quelle surprise! Not.

My experience in 4- 5 years of using 12-40 Pro and the 40-150 Pro is that out of 15,000 plus images taken is that very very few have ever been deleted for reasons that had anything to do with bokeh. And the opposite is true that many of my favourite photos are often because of the bokeh the lens has delivered.

wolfie said:

Messier Object said:

I’m not sure how “bokeh” is relevant to Andy’s video.

He’s highlighting what he considers to be his best/favourite images of 2020. Why would we expect to find “poor bokeh” or out of focus, or excessive noise or any other undesirable quality in his best images ?

He’s an excellent photographer, but like the rest of us he probably deletes images that don’t meet his quality criteria. We don’t get to see those images, but that doesn’t mean that his equipment sometimes fails to deliver for him.

Poor bokeh on Olympus zooms - I think that Andy has seen his share.

Peter

Click to expand...

You are coming across as being very determined to be in a "glass is virtually empty" sort of rut on this subject.

Click to expand...

not at all. I acknowledge that the Zuiko m,43 Pro zooms, including the 40-150mm F2.8, and the 300mm F4 Pro Prime are extraordinary in their sharpness. And I’ve never stated that any of the lenses in question produce poor o.o.f backgrounds all of the time. How is that a virtually empty glass ?

But I do (often) respond to those who are blind to the tendency of said lenses to produce an ugly background at times. And reading the title of the this thread I once again wanted to respond.

wolfie said:

I would bet virtually EVERY lens ever created can have ugly bokeh in SOME circumstances Quelle surprise! Not.

Click to expand...

“Poor Bokeh on Olympus zooms - I think not“ is what the OP says. So you don’t agree with him either it seems.

wolfie said:

My experience in 4- 5 years of using 12-40 Pro and the 40-150 Pro is that out of 15,000 plus images taken is that very very few have ever been deleted for reasons that had anything to do with bokeh. And the opposite is true that many of my favourite photos are often because of the bokeh the lens has delivered.

Click to expand...

your assessment of your own images is entirely yours to make. Others have their own views on the 40-150mm Pro lens in particular

In life I don’t see full or empty glasses.

Peter

Messier Object said:

Gary from Seattle said:

Messier Object said:

x

Messier Object said:

Yet your examples made no such point - just lousy backgrounds on shots that one would not have taken anyway......

Click to expand...

Taken or not taken, the aesthetic compositional aspects of the images are irrelevant to how the lens renders the out of focus elements.

I see plenty of images posted to this forum - images which the users took deliberately - which display horrible out of focus backgrounds

Just yesterday there was an image of a Pelican in flight captured with the 300mm F4.
Did you see it ?

here
EM1X Bird Detect BIF experience: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

It's a very nice image of the pelican - well framed, good wing position, well exposed, and in focus.

The photographer did everything just about right as I see it

But have a look at the nervous rendering of the grass in the background.
The lens did that, not the photographer.

But the Olympus apologists would say - "oh but he should have waited until the bird was clear of the background", or "he shouldn't have taken the image in such harsh light", or "he should have sat down on the ground to take the bird from a different angle".

Click to expand...

That is not it at all. One may well take such an image - with any camera or brand. If well done the bird will be sharp; the background will remain junk.

Click to expand...

I don’t get junky background like that with my birding lenses, 4/3 or FF

Click to expand...

Sure....you can take a lousy shot and it magically turns into something great. If you believe that, I have a bridge I will sell you.

Messier Object said:

Messier Object said:

I saw that immediately without opening it to full size. How good the junky background is is a poor metric for lens quality.

Click to expand...

i think it’s a completely valid metric, as do others

Click to expand...

You have a mouse in your pocket? All the experts tell you that the quality of the background makes a big difference in IQ. Andy Rouse does a great job of educating photographers about this in several of his Wild Angle videos; choosing just the right background.

Messier Object said:

Messier Object said:

It is still a junky background. Would i shoot the shot sure, but I would grade it 3*, not 4* or 5*. The shot I showed of the Bittern is maybe 2*; a later image 3*.

Click to expand...

Your gradings are a personal matter for you

Click to expand...

Sounds like you overrate yours.

Messier Object said:

Messier Object said:

It won't win any awards; not the photographer's fault. It just is. So be it. A perfectly done and composed shot of a toilet seat with fantastic Bokeh is still a shot of a toilet seat.

Click to expand...

If you are a commercial photographer with a plumbing supplier as your client a good image of a toilet seat may be what you’re being paid for :-D

Click to expand...

Show me a "great" shot of a toilet seat.

Messier Object said:

Messier Object said:

Bokeh is irrelevant on a mediocre shot. How a lens renders a good subject and background is an entirely different matter.

Click to expand...

I would judge the pelican shot to have both good subject and good background. The lens did an excellent job on one and something different with the other

Click to expand...

To me the bird is beautiful and well done. But it does not sit in isolation. The image because of this will not win any awards. Choosing (in birding being lucky enough) to shoot an image with a good background is paramount to a high graded image. I spent two hours perched in a great location day before yesterday to have the opportunity to shoot Harriers, Rough-legged, and Red-tailed Hawks. I hoped to catch the birds just beneath me in a turn with the late sun catching the bird just right. The potentially great image never materialized. Top tier images are all about composition. If I had the birds on a string, I would have gotten a great image if I executed properly.

A top tier image has behavior, background, exposure without harsh light, and a nearly ideal combination of colors, with no distractions from linear elements (especially bright ones). I have a location where I can get images like that with bumblebees and butterflies.

Messier Object said:

Messier Object said:

Messier Object said:

Peter

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...