Want to see an odd DOF effect?

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:23:00 +1200, Me wrote:

On 26/04/2011 12:36 p.m., RichA wrote:
On Apr 25, 7:55 pm, Eric wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 05:35:08 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:









On Apr 25, 3:31 am, wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 24, 12:41 pm, Paul wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:43:14 +0100,
wrote:

wrote:
Two shots. One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8. Same
again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E. Check out the (impossible?) extra
shallow DOF with the OM lens.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847

The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance shorter than
the distance to the first battery. So, just as with most of your
so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can be drawn.

I agree.

Try focusing in the middle so you get some foreground and background OOF
and can see from the wood table where the focus is. As shot, the focus
is probably in the air in front of the table edge so you can't confirm
it. An angled tape measure works very well for this kind of test; you
can see where the numbers become illegible:http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...-7215760323110......

To satisfy the doubters, I'll shoot a ruler on the incline, they way
the you when calibrating focus. But I've seen this with Olympus
lenses before.

You've seen it before? You mean, like we've all seen your inability
to carry out a properly controlled test before?

Perhaps you wanted *so much* to see a difference between the two
lenses that you deliberately focused the Olympus lens short of the
first battery?

So you are saying that my conclusions are wrong? Will you admit YOU
were wrong when I post the next test?

He is saying you fudged the first exposure to make it demonstrate the
aspect in which you so desperately believed.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Well, here is another one. Check out the ruler shots.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/unus...mpus_50mm_lens

Wow, that Olympus lens is very soft and has butt-ugly bokeh.
The Nikkor 50mm f1.8D isn't regarded as being flash for bokeh (but no
worse than most of these "standard" f1.4 - f2 ~50mm lenses from any
maker), perhaps the E is much nicer.

There's very little to no difference in the "quality" of the bokeh between
the Olympus and the Yashica. In fact, I prefer the bokeh "quality" of the
Olympus lens, though slight the difference may be.

A brainless Nikon fanboi are ye? If so, then you might want to consider
switching brands to mindlessly rave about if those exposure and aperture
settings are true. Nikon only became popular on the sheep-principle,
nothing more.

Nikon is to cameras and lenses as Meade is to telescopes. Both foundering
on their name popularity only.

Better Info wrote in

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/unus...mpus_50mm_lens

The answer is in your shutter speed. The Nikon is lying about its
aperture. Or you are. -- The more plausible answer.


The Nikon and the Olympus have the same size front lens aperture and the
Nikon's rear aperture is about 1.5mm smaller in diameter than the Olympus.
However, only testing would determine if that aperture defines the light
cone.

On 26/04/2011 1:39 p.m., Better Info wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:23:00 +1200, wrote:

On 26/04/2011 12:36 p.m., RichA wrote:
On Apr 25, 7:55 pm, Eric wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 05:35:08 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:









On Apr 25, 3:31 am, wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 24, 12:41 pm, Paul wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:43:14 +0100,
wrote:

wrote:
Two shots. One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8. Same
again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E. Check out the (impossible?) extra
shallow DOF with the OM lens.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847

The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance shorter than
the distance to the first battery. So, just as with most of your
so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can be drawn.

I agree.

Try focusing in the middle so you get some foreground and background OOF
and can see from the wood table where the focus is. As shot, the focus
is probably in the air in front of the table edge so you can't confirm
it. An angled tape measure works very well for this kind of test; you
can see where the numbers become illegible:http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...-7215760323110......

To satisfy the doubters, I'll shoot a ruler on the incline, they way
the you when calibrating focus. But I've seen this with Olympus
lenses before.

You've seen it before? You mean, like we've all seen your inability
to carry out a properly controlled test before?

Perhaps you wanted *so much* to see a difference between the two
lenses that you deliberately focused the Olympus lens short of the
first battery?

So you are saying that my conclusions are wrong? Will you admit YOU
were wrong when I post the next test?

He is saying you fudged the first exposure to make it demonstrate the
aspect in which you so desperately believed.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Well, here is another one. Check out the ruler shots.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/unus...mpus_50mm_lens

Wow, that Olympus lens is very soft and has butt-ugly bokeh.
The Nikkor 50mm f1.8D isn't regarded as being flash for bokeh (but no
worse than most of these "standard" f1.4 - f2 ~50mm lenses from any
maker), perhaps the E is much nicer.

There's very little to no difference in the "quality" of the bokeh between
the Olympus and the Yashica. In fact, I prefer the bokeh "quality" of the
Olympus lens, though slight the difference may be.

A brainless Nikon fanboi are ye? If so, then you might want to consider
switching brands to mindlessly rave about if those exposure and aperture
settings are true. Nikon only became popular on the sheep-principle,
nothing more.


Even though bokeh is subjective "personal preference", that Olympus lens
bokeh is very harsh, so if you prefer that, then you're either blind, or
all your taste is in your mouth.
And BTW, I made no comment about the Yashica, but now I'll comment that
it also has butt-ugly bokeh, the old el-cheapo budget "E" Nikkor looks
much nicer, and I don't care a rat's arse if you think that's a "fanboi"
comment.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 17:12:08 +1200, Me wrote:

On 26/04/2011 1:39 p.m., Better Info wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:23:00 +1200, wrote:

On 26/04/2011 12:36 p.m., RichA wrote:
On Apr 25, 7:55 pm, Eric wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 05:35:08 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:









On Apr 25, 3:31 am, wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 24, 12:41 pm, Paul wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:43:14 +0100,
wrote:

wrote:
Two shots. One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8. Same
again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E. Check out the (impossible?) extra
shallow DOF with the OM lens.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847

The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance shorter than
the distance to the first battery. So, just as with most of your
so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can be drawn.

I agree.

Try focusing in the middle so you get some foreground and background OOF
and can see from the wood table where the focus is. As shot, the focus
is probably in the air in front of the table edge so you can't confirm
it. An angled tape measure works very well for this kind of test; you
can see where the numbers become illegible:http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...-7215760323110......

To satisfy the doubters, I'll shoot a ruler on the incline, they way
the you when calibrating focus. But I've seen this with Olympus
lenses before.

You've seen it before? You mean, like we've all seen your inability
to carry out a properly controlled test before?

Perhaps you wanted *so much* to see a difference between the two
lenses that you deliberately focused the Olympus lens short of the
first battery?

So you are saying that my conclusions are wrong? Will you admit YOU
were wrong when I post the next test?

He is saying you fudged the first exposure to make it demonstrate the
aspect in which you so desperately believed.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Well, here is another one. Check out the ruler shots.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/unus...mpus_50mm_lens

Wow, that Olympus lens is very soft and has butt-ugly bokeh.
The Nikkor 50mm f1.8D isn't regarded as being flash for bokeh (but no
worse than most of these "standard" f1.4 - f2 ~50mm lenses from any
maker), perhaps the E is much nicer.

There's very little to no difference in the "quality" of the bokeh between
the Olympus and the Yashica. In fact, I prefer the bokeh "quality" of the
Olympus lens, though slight the difference may be.

A brainless Nikon fanboi are ye? If so, then you might want to consider
switching brands to mindlessly rave about if those exposure and aperture
settings are true. Nikon only became popular on the sheep-principle,
nothing more.


Even though bokeh is subjective "personal preference", that Olympus lens
bokeh is very harsh, so if you prefer that, then you're either blind, or
all your taste is in your mouth.
And BTW, I made no comment about the Yashica, but now I'll comment that
it also has butt-ugly bokeh, the old el-cheapo budget "E" Nikkor looks
much nicer, and I don't care a rat's arse if you think that's a "fanboi"
comment.

No, what you fail to realize is that you CANNOT compare the bokeh between
the Nikon and the other lenses. BECAUSE, if those exposures and apertures
are true, THEN the Nikon is seriously misrepresenting its aperture. Though
this isn't the first time that I've seen Nikon pull the wool over the the
brainless nikon-sheeps' eyes. Say "B-a-a-a-a-a-a..." some more.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 22:01:37 -0500, Rich wrote:

Better Info wrote in

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/unus...mpus_50mm_lens

The answer is in your shutter speed. The Nikon is lying about its
aperture. Or you are. -- The more plausible answer.


The Nikon and the Olympus have the same size front lens aperture and the
Nikon's rear aperture is about 1.5mm smaller in diameter than the Olympus.
However, only testing would determine if that aperture defines the light
cone.

The sizes of the front and rear elements are no indication of the f/ratio.
That is determined by the whole optical train and any and all internal
stops. If this isn't the usual trolling, i.e. just inventing those f/ratio
and exposure numbers, then that Nikon lens is a good candidate to show
everyone how Nikon likes to fleece the photography world. Or more
acurately, fleece the Nikon fanboi sheep.

I suggest that more images be taken with the other lenses at smaller and
smaller aperture stops to duplicate the DOF of the Nikon lens. Then you'll
know just how much aperture that all Nikon owners got ripped-off for.

Judging by the shutter speeds listed in the ruler photos the Nikon lens is
five 1/3rd EV stops smaller in size. Making its maximum aperture f/3.5, not
f/1.8. Poor quality coatings and too many glass/air surfaces could also
account for the loss of some light, but not a whole 5/3rds stops. Did
someone forget to remove an ND or CP filter on the Nikon?

RichA wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
RichAwrote:
Bruce wrote:
RichA wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
Brucewrote:
RichA wrote:

Two shots. One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8. Same
again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E. Check out the (impossible?) extra
shallow DOF with the OM lens.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847

The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance shorter than
the distance to the first battery. So, just as with most of your
so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can be drawn.

I agree.

Try focusing in the middle so you get some foreground and background OOF
and can see from the wood table where the focus is. As shot, the focus
is probably in the air in front of the table edge so you can't confirm
it. An angled tape measure works very well for this kind of test; you
can see where the numbers become illegible:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...57603231101723

To satisfy the doubters, I'll shoot a ruler on the incline, they way
the you when calibrating focus. But I've seen this with Olympus
lenses before.

You've seen it before? You mean, like we've all seen your inability
to carry out a properly controlled test before?

Perhaps you wanted *so much* to see a difference between the two
lenses that you deliberately focused the Olympus lens short of the
first battery?

So you are saying that my conclusions are wrong? Will you admit YOU
were wrong when I post the next test?

He is saying you fudged the first exposure to make it demonstrate the
aspect in which you so desperately believed.

Well, here is another one. Check out the ruler shots.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/unus...mpus_50mm_lens

Thanks, that's an interesting comparison. The Nikkor appears to be
slower than the others. It shows 1/13th second vs 1/40th and the OOF
blur circles are a lot smaller. The Yashica appears to show astigmatism,
where the edges wig out asymmetrically.

More interesting is the non-Nikkors appear to have better foreground
bokeh than background, perhaps due to over-corrected spherical aberration?

Rich wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
RichA wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
RichAwrote:
Bruce wrote:
RichA wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
Brucewrote:
RichA wrote:

Two shots. One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8. Same
again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E. Check out the (impossible?) extra
shallow DOF with the OM lens.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847

The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance shorter than
the distance to the first battery. So, just as with most of your
so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can be drawn.

I agree.

Try focusing in the middle so you get some foreground and background OOF
and can see from the wood table where the focus is. As shot, the focus
is probably in the air in front of the table edge so you can't confirm
it. An angled tape measure works very well for this kind of test; you
can see where the numbers become illegible:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...-7215760323110...

To satisfy the doubters, I'll shoot a ruler on the incline, they way
the you when calibrating focus. But I've seen this with Olympus
lenses before.

You've seen it before? You mean, like we've all seen your inability
to carry out a properly controlled test before?

Perhaps you wanted *so much* to see a difference between the two
lenses that you deliberately focused the Olympus lens short of the
first battery?

So you are saying that my conclusions are wrong? Will you admit YOU
were wrong when I post the next test?

He is saying you fudged the first exposure to make it demonstrate the
aspect in which you so desperately believed.

Well, here is another one. Check out the ruler shots.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/unus...mpus_50mm_lens

Thanks, that's an interesting comparison. The Nikkor appears to be
slower than the others. It shows 1/13th second vs 1/40th and the OOF
blur circles are a lot smaller. The Yashica appears to show astigmatism,
where the edges wig out asymmetrically.

More interesting is the non-Nikkors appear to have better foreground
bokeh than background, perhaps due to over-corrected spherical aberration?

I have a Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 lens that has decent optical
quality, but ugly bokeh wide open. Seems to support your observation
about the Olympus and Yashica linking SA with good bokeh.

Only good in the foreground though, which seems odd, or at least
normally less useful. The DC (Defocus Control) Nikkors have SA
adjustable to make foreground or background softer, whether
over-corrected or under-corrected.