A Ken Rockwell lens and focusing quote

Oscar Levant said:
I will categorically state that "bokeh" is a bunch of nonsense. Nobody aside from a few psychotics look at or care what "bokeh" is.
Click to expand...

Don't tell that to this guy:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/moaan/

He's the king of bokeh! (with a noct, no less)

For example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/moaan/3752449616/

3752449616_03e3cb16d2.jpg


or:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/moaan/3102343835/

3102343835_288532f026.jpg


Too cool!
 
Oscar Levant said:
I will categorically state that "bokeh" is a bunch of nonsense. Nobody aside from a few psychotics look at or care what "bokeh" is.

The people who harp about it are parroting nonsense they've read from other dopes.
Click to expand...

I never thought I would see the emphasis on out of focus over contet. I guess I've been fooling myself all these years. I should have bee shooting ECU's of leaves with oof backgrounds.

Fun aside, I use my F,F2 & Nikkormat FTN as my primary SLR's. The F & F2 are the best I've found for SLR focusing. I owned Leiceflex SL cameras in the 70's and couldn't focus them with any accuracy. My new Canon DSLR's are on par with the old Leicaflex for terrible focusing.

Oscar don't take the bokeh thing too hard. We live in a new age and life changes. If you dont believe things change then take a look at magazines like Aperture and Blindspot.

You and I can shoot the rest of the tree in focus and let them have the oof.
 
Nobody discarded their plastic "toy" camera every year back when the Nikon F was the pro's choice. You might have upgraded to a meter prism or another focusing screen but odds are that old Nikon is still working!
 
Double Negative said:
It certainly applies to cameras like Canon DSLRs. I wager Nikon is similar.

The stock screen is optimized for "average" lenses and AF. There is an optional focusing screen that's optimized for "lenses of f/2.8 and brighter" which have a shallower "in focus" zone, and changes focus more rapidly so that you have better accuracy with fast lenses.

For example, for my 1D Mark IIn, I can opt for this "Ec-S" focusing screen. I plan to pick one up as I shoot mainly fast L primes.

The downside is that they're darker with those same "average" lenses. Another downside, or at least something to make a note of - is that these screens change exposure readings. With the Canon DSLRs at least, there's a menu option for the particular screen you have installed so it knows to compensate.

All of my lenses, save for one is f/2.8 or brighter, including three zooms. But one, the 100-400mm is f/4.5-5.6 and I do use TCs (1.4x and 2.0x) with my 300mm f/2.8. I fear for the impact that the different screen might have in these cases.
Click to expand...

I have been told that Nikon do not offer for current bodies a screen optimized for wide aperture lenses. And with screens being complicated by focus points etc it is hard to a third party to make them.

Now that I think about it, it's one of the reasons I like my SL66: the view of the world on the screen is like cameras used to be. Talk about heavy?

The TLRs offer similar viewing pleasure, but not so heavy.
 
kshapero said:
"An advantage of the older Nikons is that their focus screens are optimized for fast lenses like f/1.2 and f/1.4, so you can see the really shallow depth-of-field and actual bokeh of these lenses through the finder. Newer cameras, like the FM2 and DSLRs, are optimized for slower zoom lenses, which makes their finders much brighter with slow lenses, but unable to show you the shallower depth of field of which faster lenses are capable. Think I'm kidding? Press the depth-of-field button to stop an f/1.4 lens down to f/2 or 2.8 on most modern cameras and you will see no difference in depth of field or brightness!" Ken Rockwell

Is this true?
Click to expand...



Rose bushes are optimized for hiding elephants. Think I'm kidding? Go to a zoo, and if you see an elephant, I guarantee you that you won't see any rose bushes around them.

Now go find a rose bush. Look around. See any elephants?
 
Oscar Levant said:
I will categorically state that "bokeh" is a bunch of nonsense. Nobody aside from a few psychotics look at or care what "bokeh" is.

The people who harp about it are parroting nonsense they've read from other dopes.
Click to expand...

I guess that officially makes me a nonsense parroting psychotic dope. And one of my exes would completely agree with you. But then again, she's hell-bent on sour grapes. 😉
 
Why are people so put off by the concept of "bokeh"? Is it just the use of a Japanese word instead of the good ol' North American Anglic "starting at mid apertures you begin to see a very pleasant rendition of the out of focus areas that appears to be due to a little bit of residual under corrected spherical abberation together with the usual cumferential tangential problems of achieving a common point of focus as you approach the corners of the frame"

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
 
My eyes just cannot manual focus with any of my three DSLR's (D90, D50, & D70). The F3HP view is still the best for my old eyes. With the addition of 'Live View' (D90), I have been able to do macro again.
 
I find the Nikon F to be much lighter than the D1 and D1x. I could put the F36 with Remopak on it, and it would be lighter than some DSLR's.

The older screens and finders were great for viewing DOF and out of focus areas. Allows you to compose on several planes. Aerial screens just do not give the same view into the picture, and you have to know the lens and use your "mind's eye" to get what you want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom