The Price of Bokeh

[KimBokeh]

Here are calculations of equivalent full frame aperture for camera/lens combinations using (mostly) data from DPReview. For variable zoom lenses, I linearly interpolated to convert to equivalent apertures at 50 mm. and 90 mm. When a lens did not zoom to equivalent field of view, I multiplied by a crop factor. Conclusion: Narrow depth of field costs money and weight.

Camera/Lens/Price/Weight Grams/50mm Equivalent/90mm Equivalent

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Fixed 4.7-17.7mm f1.4-2.3 $299 298 7.4 9.7

Olympus Stylus XZ-2 Fixed 6-24mm f1.8-2.5 $299 346 8.3 9.7

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II Fixed 10.4-37.1mm f1.8-4.9 $698 281 7.4 12.1

Olympus PEN E-PL5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm f1.8 $898 441 NA 3.6

Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 $899 425 4.3 7.7

Sony a6000 Sony 50mm f1.8 $946 557 NA 3.2

Fujifilm X100S Fixed 23mm f2 $1,299 445 4.3 7.8

Nikon 1 V3 1 NIKKOR 32mm f1.2 $1,647 616 NA 3.4

Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm f1.2 $2,097 850 NA 2.5

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 Fixed f2 $2,798 482 2.9 5.1

 

[darklamp]

Bokeh refers to the quality, not the quantity, of blur.

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.

 

[jayrandomer]

Bokeh refers to the quality, not the quantity, of blur.

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.

If you want thin DOF for the smallest amount, used APS-c cameras are definitely the way to go (with cheap fast primes).

 

[Wayne Larmon]

Bokeh refers to the quality, not the quantity, of blur.

Mike Johnston popularized the use of bokeh to refer to lens blur in the March/April 1997 issue of Photo Techniques magazine (out of print and not online.) He is dismayed about all the misinformation that is swirling around the web about how bokeh is defined and he wrote a blog post a few years ago to clarify:

What Is Bokeh?

He writes:

"Bokeh" simply means blur, specifically out-of-focus blur (as opposed to the kinds caused by subject or camera movement).

And

There's also no "good" or "bad" bokeh, at least not per se.

He included these definitions:

Boke: Japanese for "out-of-the-depth-of-field blur" or "out-of-focus blur."
"Out-of-the-depth-of-field blur" or "out-of-focus blur": English for boke.
Boke-aji: Japanese for "flavor of blur," i.e., what kind of boke it is or how the boke might be described.
Bokeh: Alternate spelling of boke meant to forestall mispronunciation.

Read the blog post for an extended explanation about the english definition of "bokeh"

So "Boke-aji" is the word that means "quality of blur." If you feel the need to to use a Japanese word to describe the quality of the out of focus area of an image. Mike Johnston concludes

Most often, these days, I just say "blur" rather than "bokeh."

Which is probably wise.

Wayne

 

[007peter]

As much as I love mirrorless camera, I'm not happy about the premium one must pay for past prime. That is another reason why Canon and Nikon DSLR continue to dominated in spite of a very old tech. Depends on the focal length you need. I would go either with:

• Nikon 35mm f/1.8 - $196.85 New or around $160 used

• Canon 50mm f/1.8 II - $100 New or $84.95 used

If you don't mind the slower AF of Canon EOS-M. You can buy a complete Canon EOS-M + 22mm F/2 prime for under $300! This is the best deal in town.

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

Here are calculations of equivalent full frame aperture for camera/lens combinations using (mostly) data from DPReview. For variable zoom lenses, I linearly interpolated to convert to equivalent apertures at 50 mm. and 90 mm. When a lens did not zoom to equivalent field of view, I multiplied by a crop factor. Conclusion: Narrow depth of field costs money and weight.

Camera/Lens/Price/Weight Grams/50mm Equivalent/90mm Equivalent

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Fixed 4.7-17.7mm f1.4-2.3 $299 298 7.4 9.7

Olympus Stylus XZ-2 Fixed 6-24mm f1.8-2.5 $299 346 8.3 9.7

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II Fixed 10.4-37.1mm f1.8-4.9 $698 281 7.4 12.1

Olympus PEN E-PL5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm f1.8 $898 441 NA 3.6

Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 $899 425 4.3 7.7

Sony a6000 Sony 50mm f1.8 $946 557 NA 3.2

Fujifilm X100S Fixed 23mm f2 $1,299 445 4.3 7.8

Nikon 1 V3 1 NIKKOR 32mm f1.2 $1,647 616 NA 3.4

Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm f1.2 $2,097 850 NA 2.5

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 Fixed f2 $2,798 482 2.9 5.1

 

[tko]

What you've shown is 1.) lowest DOF versus weight is achieved by primes 2.) best bang for the buck and weight is FF. You're not going to beat FF and a fast prime performance ratio.

Lens blur is basically proportional to front objective diameter. Not need to calculate this one. The bigger the glass, the more blur, the more the cost, and heavier the lens.

 

[Mr.NoFlash]

Bokeh refers to the quality, not the quantity, of blur.

Mike Johnston popularized the use of bokeh to refer to lens blur in the March/April 1997 issue of Photo Techniques magazine (out of print and not online.) He is dismayed about all the misinformation that is swirling around the web about how bokeh is defined and he wrote a blog post a few years ago to clarify:

What Is Bokeh?

He writes:

"Bokeh" simply means blur, specifically out-of-focus blur (as opposed to the kinds caused by subject or camera movement).

And

There's also no "good" or "bad" bokeh, at least not per se.

He included these definitions:

Boke: Japanese for "out-of-the-depth-of-field blur" or "out-of-focus blur."
"Out-of-the-depth-of-field blur" or "out-of-focus blur": English for boke.
Boke-aji: Japanese for "flavor of blur," i.e., what kind of boke it is or how the boke might be described.
Bokeh: Alternate spelling of boke meant to forestall mispronunciation.

Read the blog post for an extended explanation about the english definition of "bokeh"

So "Boke-aji" is the word that means "quality of blur." If you feel the need to to use a Japanese word to describe the quality of the out of focus area of an image. Mike Johnston concludes

Most often, these days, I just say "blur" rather than "bokeh."

Which is probably wise.

Wayne

Even if bokeh would mean Blur, then this bokeh would have several atrributes: quality and amount.

But as far as I remember many discussions, bokeh is indeed only the quality of blur, for example mirror lenses do not have a good bokeh.

Loading…

www.bobatkins.com

 

[Aberaeron]

Bokeh refers to the quality, not the quantity, of blur.

Mike Johnston popularized the use of bokeh to refer to lens blur in the March/April 1997 issue of Photo Techniques magazine (out of print and not online.) He is dismayed about all the misinformation that is swirling around the web about how bokeh is defined and he wrote a blog post a few years ago to clarify:

What Is Bokeh?

He writes:

"Bokeh" simply means blur, specifically out-of-focus blur (as opposed to the kinds caused by subject or camera movement).

And

There's also no "good" or "bad" bokeh, at least not per se.

He included these definitions:

Boke: Japanese for "out-of-the-depth-of-field blur" or "out-of-focus blur."
"Out-of-the-depth-of-field blur" or "out-of-focus blur": English for boke.
Boke-aji: Japanese for "flavor of blur," i.e., what kind of boke it is or how the boke might be described.
Bokeh: Alternate spelling of boke meant to forestall mispronunciation.

Read the blog post for an extended explanation about the english definition of "bokeh"

So "Boke-aji" is the word that means "quality of blur." If you feel the need to to use a Japanese word to describe the quality of the out of focus area of an image. Mike Johnston concludes

Most often, these days, I just say "blur" rather than "bokeh."

Which is probably wise.

Wayne

Even if bokeh would mean Blur, then this bokeh would have several atrributes: quality and amount.

But as far as I remember many discussions, bokeh is indeed only the quality of blur, for example mirror lenses do not have a good bokeh.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/bokeh.html

 

[MediaArchivist]

... I do not think it means what you think it means.

The most consistent quality of blur ("bokeh," as common usage defines it) I get is from:

• ∑50/1.4 EX (wonderful bokeh, even pretty good in front)
• ∑70mm macro (also wonderful, not quite as good in front)
• Minolta 85/1.4G (other than some green tinging on bokeh balls, excellent)
• Minolta beercan (best bokeh I have seen on a zoom)
• 135[STF] (IMHO the best ever, but I'm not going to fight anyone about it)

The Sigmas are not very expensive, and the beercan can be had in good condition for ~$100. The 85G is pretty expensive, and the STF is quite expensive for a fixed focal MF only lens (but if you know you want it, worth every penny).

The quality of the blur is the same on my crop camera and FF. The FF is capable, of course, of more sheer quantity of blur without diminishing the quality at all. All of this is subjective, there are no charts or calculations to line up, and really nothing to declare as an overall winner since different people have different tastes. I have seen shallow DoF done very well with MFT, I imagine it is a little more difficult but that does not prevent someone who knows what they are doing from doing it well. Likewise, I have seen horrendous shallow DoF on FF shots— many of which are mine. Not every scene lends itself to that technique, and many people confuse quantity with quality (and FF does make it easier to achieve a lot of background blur regardless of quality).

 

[darklamp]

[No message]

 

[Wayne Larmon]

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

Wayne

 

[crashpc]

There are people who can translate...

 

[Mark_A]

Nikkor 85mm f1.8 £250 used vs 85mm f1.4 £800

The first has some quite good bokeh but the second is creamy.

How much money do you have?

Do you feel lucky punk?

Mark A

 

[MediaArchivist]

In English, the word "tycoon" does not refer to a prince, as it would in Japan (or rather, in Japanese). In America, "fiesta" means a large party, but in Spain it means a religious holiday.

All languages borrow, with some license, from other languages. The common usage in the adopted language might differ from the original use, and such usage is not considered incorrect. In America, "bokeh" refers to the subjective quality of a lens' out of focus rendering. The resulting image can have "good bokeh," "bad bokeh," "harsh bokeh," or "beautiful bokeh"; but not "more bokeh," "larger bokeh," or "faster bokeh."

 

[Wayne Larmon]

In English, the word "tycoon" does not refer to a prince, as it would in Japan (or rather, in Japanese). In America, "fiesta" means a large party, but in Spain it means a religious holiday.

"Bokeh" is not comparable because its use in English springs from a single magazine article that was written in 1997. The other words you referenced have no such lineage.

All languages borrow, with some license, from other languages. The common usage in the adopted language might differ from the original use, and such usage is not considered incorrect. In America, "bokeh" refers to the subjective quality of a lens' out of focus rendering. The resulting image can have "good bokeh," "bad bokeh," "harsh bokeh," or "beautiful bokeh"; but not "more bokeh," "larger bokeh," or "faster bokeh."

Bearing in mind that "bokeh" is a synonym for "blur", it is entirely possible to for an image to have "more blur." But "larger blur" and "faster blur" are indeed questionable usage.

Most of you seem to be using the "shout down" method of repeated, unsupported, assertion form of argument. If you repeat it enough times then it must be true. I linked to a primary source for the definition of "bokeh." I'm not going to repeat my previous post, but please read the Mike Johnston blog that explains the definition of bokeh. Pay special attention to the reference to the year "1997."

Wayne

 

[MediaArchivist]

Bearing in mind that "bokeh" is a synonym for "blur"

No, it is not. They are related, but not the same thing.

Most of you seem to be using the "shout down" method of repeated, unsupported, assertion form of argument. If you repeat it enough times then it must be true. I linked to a primary source for the definition of "bokeh."

I'm sure I could find a primary source for tycoon as well. The term "bokeh" does not mean amount of blur, it means "subjective rendering quality of out of focus areas of an image." It means that due to overwhelming common usage. That's not shouting down, that's how the English language grows and adopts new words and meanings. I am compelled to refer to the Oxford dictionary:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/bokeh

• The visual quality of the out-of-focus areas of a photographic image, especially as rendered by a particular lens

Note the emphasis on quality, and the absence of quantity.

I'm not going to repeat my previous post, but please read the Mike Johnston blog that explains the definition of bokeh. Pay special attention to the reference to the year "1997."

I did, and I found this reference from that article to be quite interesting:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml

Key quote:

• The Japanese apparently refer to the quality of the out-of-focus image as "boke".

Also, these references which can easily be found elsewhere by searching for "bokeh":

http://photojpn.org/words/len.html
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm
http://www.diyphotography.net/diy_create_your_own_bokeh/
http://toothwalker.org/optics/bokeh.html

The last link is particularly interesting:

• The larger aperture comes with a more blurred background, and today there are people who will say that the right image has "more bokeh". This drifts away from the original meaning of the term.

Agreed.

 

[FrancoD]

You cannot apply a price to bokeh based on numbers because that does not translate into how one likes a particular bokeh however it does apply to deph moof field and as pointed out deph of field is a quantity , bokeh is a quality.

A couple of examples .

Not particularly good (or bad) just borrowed from google Images :









now some may like the first type, others may like the second and others still neither .

Here is an example of a photo from a mirror lens :





most will "agree" that they don't like the bokeh a mirror lens produces.

However in this particular shot it works for me therefore I can say it has a "nice bokeh" or simply that I like the bokeh in that shot.

(again NOT my photo, another one borrowed from Google Images...)

 

[Wayne Larmon]

That's not shouting down, that's how the English language grows and adopts new words and meanings. I am compelled to refer to the Oxford dictionary:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/bokeh

OK, if it has made it into the dictionaries, then I guess your definition has prevailed. But I still hold that "bokeh" is singular because it was mostly unknown in English until Mike Johnston popularized it in the 1997 articles I referenced. And his definition is the definition that I was quoting.

But you cited credible references so I won't argue the point any more. I guess Mike lost control of the word.

Wayne

 

[nstam]

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

 

[jeffcpix]

Some good info on bokeh:

The Rokkor Files - Ultimate Normal Lens Challenge

Loading…

www.hasselbladusa.com