Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by Timo Hartikainen, Dec 24, 2017.
You must be really old Chuck. I used to go there also and I am old!
Oh dear. I am beginning to see it now.
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).
OMG - another Hopkins boy???? (and yes - way too old)
"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.
Name those 4.5 or 5.6 lenses which can beat Canon 50/1.2, 85/1.4 or 135/2.
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.
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.
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.
Why " relatively" inexpensive system chose to focus on mic instead of singer. (Please don't tell me it was artistic choice)
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.
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.
Buca's is the name of the
I grew up in Eden Prairie before it became the yuppie capitol of Minnesota.
It was joke from my side too, next time ask singer to stay still
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.
Separate names with a comma.