Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by Timo Hartikainen, Dec 24, 2017.

  1. You must be really old Chuck. I used to go there also and I am old!
  2. Oh dear. I am beginning to see it now. Wizard and Crystal ball med.jpg
    Landrum Kelly likes this.
  3. I thought Bokeh was the name of the family style Italian place. ;) One it St. Paul and Minneapolis (didn't realize there that many Minnesotans in this thread).
  4. OMG - another Hopkins boy???? (and yes - way too old)
  5. "You must be really old Chuck. I used to go there also and I am old!"

    Jeez, you dudes are older than dirt. Hey, with age comes wisdom so it is told;))

    Bokeh a matter of taste or fashion....sort of like the Leica red dot.
  6. Name those 4.5 or 5.6 lenses which can beat Canon 50/1.2, 85/1.4 or 135/2.
  7. Gerry, as Jelly said in Analyze This, some roughage should help with that. In the days when we had paper clip holders on our desks, I would turn over the clear plastic bottom one to divine the future whenever asked a question that required clairvoyance. You know, like, how long will this take. Count me in with the old geezers, I remember paper clips and 3 colored memo forms. Have one on my wall, the forerunner of email. Nick, add a 35 2 and you have my favorite things. I don't think Ed is saying there isn't a correlation between wide aperture lenses and good oof, I think he is saying a wide aperture isn't necessarily a guarantee of soft bokeh. Timo shot at 1,8 wider than mine at 2.0. Since I am usually shooting 4.0 and below, I shoot differently than architecture or landscape folks who want everything in focus. I hadn't had my sensor cleaned in a couple of year and then tested all my jells from f4 to f16 and when I put them on the screen, there was tons of dust on the sensor. How much, the guy cleaning it said it would take longer because he had to bring in a backhoe.
  8. The Canon 50/1.2 L looks very good from examples I've seen in reviews. That's because it is a Canon 50/1.2 L, not f/1.2. I see similar results in reviews of all the Zeiss Otus, Milvus and Batis lenses. For f/4 or f/5.6, the Schneider technical lenses for MF rank very well. I'm not displeased with my relatively inexpensive (~ same as Canon 50/1.2 L) Sony 70-200/4 either.

  9. Agreed, with some cheapo fast lenses OOF looks rough. I think Sigma realized that there's good market for soft bokeh lenses with releasing Art series.
  10. Why " relatively" inexpensive system chose to focus on mic instead of singer. (Please don't tell me it was artistic choice) :)
  11. Do all critics us a dead cat for their logo? The focus is correct, but the singer moved a little. The microphone is definitely NOT in focus. I have a over a dozen so I know what they look like. I could have tilted the camera for "artistic" effect ;)

    My purpose was to illustrate smooth bokeh, not win the Nick D. photography prize. Nor do I consider $1350 for a lens "inexpensive." That was joke.
  12. That's why it's good to shoot with f2 or so :) sometimes when I need more depth of field, I'm horrified about dark spots here and there. I sometimes shoot a white wall with f16 to see my all dust specs. And sometimes I'm trying to clean the sensor and when I shoot again to see if the cleaning was ok, usually there is still always a couple of spots...and then I have to think that usually I can't see those spots if I'm not using f8 or so.
  13. Buca's is the name of the
    I grew up in Eden Prairie before it became the yuppie capitol of Minnesota.
  14. It was joke from my side too, next time ask singer to stay still :)
  15. Thanks. I'm slow to catch a joke when my ego is in the way. I like this picture for the mood it captures - people really enjoying what they're doing.

Share This Page