About that Bokeh (Another FF/m43 comparison)

Just posted a comparison in this article. Feel free to comment.

http://www.qamera.com/2015/09/15/about-that-bokeh/

Tony8232 wrote:

I think a comparison to APSC is more relevant since they must out sell FF by a huge margin.

I did a three-camera comparison early last year before I sold my APS-C camera:

http://www.qamera.com/2014/02/12/3-cameras-3-lenses/

I'm not sure I quite understand the point. The first photo tells the whole story, as it shows the real difference in DoF when shot near the same framing. I think that is the key ultimately, because its quite easy to get thin DoF from any camera when you focus at its minimum focusing distance, but then the composition/framing may not be at all where you would want it.

Thanks. Actually, the first comparison is an example of why those kinds of comparisons don't really work on this particular lens - because it was only zoomed out to 75mm.

dulynoted wrote:

why would you compare them at different equivalent focal lengths? Should have set the olympus at 100 and the other at 200. Your comparison is totally pointless...

Hear hear!  

Because photography is not (normally) conducted in a sterile laboratory.  At least, mine isn't.

Creamy bokeh. Well,OK. Why not say blurry to give definition to the main subject. And the nature of the background and its texture and distance are critical to the blurry effect. What am I trying to remember. Oh yes, the sign on our donut shop on Tremont St, Boston. " As you wander on through life brother, let this always be your goal. Keep your eye on the donut and not on the hole" And now we sell the donut holes, to donut hole salesmen a gift....I myself stick to donuts. And leave the bokeh to the Japanese bokeshoguns... but it gives someting to stir the mind on lazy days. Oh well,sokay and not gonna go away...bokeh bokeh,creamy and frozen..

What I do at a urinal is a non topic.  Biggest question always is how many times do you need to shake it  at the end.  Only my urologist knows for sure.  We conquered the bokeh problem years ago Jardine. Even with lenses like the Zeiss Tessar F 3.5  But shucks now I forgot what we did.  We either did something or we were unschooled in the mystery of bokeh.  Does Isaiah say anything about bokeh..no I think not...:-)

Bhima78 wrote:

I'm not sure I quite understand the point. The first photo tells the whole story, as it shows the real difference in DoF when shot near the same framing.

But why would anyone restrict themselves like that?  No one would every think, "gosh darn it the Nikon 70-200mm lens maxes out at 200mm, so I must only shoot at 200mm EFL on my Olympus 40-150mm lens!".  But I have read about people using longer focal lengths in order to get a shallower DoF and limit what is in the background of a portrait.

These are different formats and forcing oneself to use a framing from a different camera and lens is rather insane.

Sports Dad wrote:

These are different formats and forcing oneself to use a framing from a different camera and lens is rather insane.

Excellent point!

Gerry Siegel wrote:

Creamy bokeh. Well,OK. Why not say blurry to give definition to the main subject. And the nature of the background and its texture and distance are critical to the blurry effect. What am I trying to remember. Oh yes, the sign on our donut shop on Tremont St, Boston. " As you wander on through life brother, let this always be your goal. Keep your eye on the donut and not on the hole" And now we sell the donut holes, to donut hole salesmen a gift....I myself stick to donuts. And leave the bokeh to the Japanese bokeshoguns... but it gives someting to stir the mind on lazy days. Oh well,sokay and not gonna go away...bokeh bokeh,creamy and frozen..

What I do at a urinal is a non topic. Biggest question always is how many times do you need to shake it at the end. Only my urologist knows for sure. We conquered the bokeh problem years ago Jardine. Even with lenses like the Zeiss Tessar F 3.5 But shucks now I forgot what we did. We either did something or we were unschooled in the mystery of bokeh. Does Isaiah say anything about bokeh..no I think not...:-)

No comment on strange things males do, other than pixel peep. Regarding bokeh - and it's cousin DOF - I generally tend to just move my camera closer to the subject if I want to really blur the background.  Pretty simple stuff.

Psychobabble wrote:

Michael Jardine wrote:

Just posted a comparison in this article. Feel free to comment.

http://www.qamera.com/2015/09/15/about-that-bokeh/

From your article: "I don’t know about you, but I just can’t resist pixel peeping. It’s what men do to each other when they are standing at the urinal. We just can’t resist comparing."

Seriously?

Agree -- terrible mindset. Speak for yourself MJ. Although you do have friends in your camp, I admit.

I am constantly reminding people to assess image quality at the final display image stage. Only pixel peep as part of a process of working towards a satisfying final display, not for assessment or judgement of how satisfied you will be with the final display.

I shoot with both formats and there are pros and cons to both. Shallow depth of field is solidly an advantage of larger sensors. What I hate is FF "logic police" who cooly demolish every advantage people find with other formats. It's as if they feel that their "pros" are more significant than "pros" of other systems and their "cons" of no consequence while the "cons" of the other systems are big harry things that make belittling others over worthwhile. And this makes for perpetually protective and defensive users in the other camp. And the wheel turns.

Cheers, Seth

Sports Dad wrote:

Bhima78 wrote:

I'm not sure I quite understand the point. The first photo tells the whole story, as it shows the real difference in DoF when shot near the same framing.

But why would anyone restrict themselves like that? No one would every think, "gosh darn it the Nikon 70-200mm lens maxes out at 200mm, so I must only shoot at 200mm EFL on my Olympus 40-150mm lens!". But I have read about people using longer focal lengths in order to get a shallower DoF and limit what is in the background of a portrait.

These are different formats and forcing oneself to use a framing from a different camera and lens is rather insane.

Without holding something constant a comparison is meaningless.  The first post is basically just saying that if you crop to a m43 size portion from a FF sensor, then you get similar results as m43.  Duh.

dulynoted wrote:

one cant always back up and use a longer focal length for the same framing.

Actually in the 'old days' before zooms, people moved forward and backwards with their prime lenses. It's great training to spend time with one or more primes; gives you a better sense of composition.  At least, it does for me.