If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
About expensive lenses
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 07:41:06 -0500, SimonLW wrote:
It is a highly desirable out of focus characteristic that cheap, inferior, and most Canon lenses don't have. This is why most Canon shooters use Nikkors. Not this Canon shooter. I prefer many older Pentax lenses and a couple of the limited series for bokeh and overall quality before I'd consider Nikon and even Canon. Berkowitz is delusional again. Get back on your medication. Really? For this topic, and this topic only, who better to know than Rita Bokehwit. For other topics she fares much worse and needs to be considerably stopped down, or better, stoppered. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
About expensive lenses
"ASAAR" wrote in message
... On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 07:41:06 -0500, SimonLW wrote: It is a highly desirable out of focus characteristic that cheap, inferior, and most Canon lenses don't have. This is why most Canon shooters use Nikkors. Not this Canon shooter. I prefer many older Pentax lenses and a couple of the limited series for bokeh and overall quality before I'd consider Nikon and even Canon. Berkowitz is delusional again. Get back on your medication. Really? For this topic, and this topic only, who better to know than Rita Bokehwit. For other topics she fares much worse and needs to be considerably stopped down, or better, stoppered. You think? You might be the only other person on the planet who would agree with her if you are really saying that Nikon is known for its good bokeh, and that you would choose Nikkors over Pentax lenses if bokeh was your criterion. The real reason many Canon body users choose Nikon lenses is less often to do with bokeh, and more usually because Canon wide-angles are so bad. Peter |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
About expensive lenses
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 01:53:26 -0000, Bandicoot wrote:
Berkowitz is delusional again. Get back on your medication. Really? For this topic, and this topic only, who better to know than Rita Bokehwit. For other topics she fares much worse and needs to be considerably stopped down, or better, stoppered. You think? You might be the only other person on the planet who would agree with her if you are really saying that Nikon is known for its good bokeh, and that you would choose Nikkors over Pentax lenses if bokeh was your criterion. Sorry, but if I believed that I'd also have to have been delusional. "For this topic, and this topic only" might be seen as a clue. g The real reason many Canon body users choose Nikon lenses is less often to do with bokeh, and more usually because Canon wide-angles are so bad. I have no experience with Canon lenses but I've heard similar grumblings from time to time from Canon users. Back to bokeh. It might be possible to improve it. Do I also have to grant patent right to the OP? Design the diaphragm so that leaves don't just close, but rotate slightly, taking shutter speed into account. I don't know if it would help, but the leaves could move in another dimension during the exposure, somewhat like bracketing, but having the aperture change smoothly during the shot. So if f/4.0 is needed, while the shutter is open the (now rotating) blades could vary from f/3.4 to f/4.5, or whatever it would take to give an amount of light equivalent to a fixed f/4.0. I imagine that the number of actuations over the shutter's life might not improve. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
About expensive lenses
"ASAAR" wrote in message
... On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 01:53:26 -0000, Bandicoot wrote: Berkowitz is delusional again. Get back on your medication. Really? For this topic, and this topic only, who better to know than Rita Bokehwit. For other topics she fares much worse and needs to be considerably stopped down, or better, stoppered. You think? You might be the only other person on the planet who would agree with her if you are really saying that Nikon is known for its good bokeh, and that you would choose Nikkors over Pentax lenses if bokeh was your criterion. Sorry, but if I believed that I'd also have to have been delusional. "For this topic, and this topic only" might be seen as a clue. g Rita's post that you said you were agreeing with reads: QUOTE What is bokeh? I have seen it referred to in a couple of posts. It is a highly desirable out of focus characteristic that cheap, inferior, and most Canon lenses don't have. This is why most Canon shooters use Nikkors. UNQUOTE ....and the full text post you were disagreeing with, and to which you replied: QUOTE Not this Canon shooter. I prefer many older Pentax lenses and a couple of the limited series for bokeh and overall quality before I'd consider Nikon and even Canon. Berkowitz is delusional again. Get back on your medication. UNQUOTE Hmmm, certainly sounds like "this topic, and this topic only" is to say that Nikkors are preferred over Canon lenses because of their bokeh (per Rita) and to disagree that Pentax would be a better choice than either for bokeh and "overall quality". Did you think you and/or Rita were saying something else? g The real reason many Canon body users choose Nikon lenses is less often to do with bokeh, and more usually because Canon wide-angles are so bad. I have no experience with Canon lenses but I've heard similar grumblings from time to time from Canon users. Back to bokeh. It might be possible to improve it. Do I also have to grant patent right to the OP? Design the diaphragm so that leaves don't just close, but rotate slightly, taking shutter speed into account. I don't know if it would help, but the leaves could move in another dimension during the exposure, somewhat like bracketing, but having the aperture change smoothly during the shot. So if f/4.0 is needed, while the shutter is open the (now rotating) blades could vary from f/3.4 to f/4.5, or whatever it would take to give an amount of light equivalent to a fixed f/4.0. I imagine that the number of actuations over the shutter's life might not improve. Interesting idea, and it would work, though maybe not very practical /cost effective. There is at least one modern camera that uses Waterhouse stop type apertures to get a perfectly round aperture. However, the biggest problem with commercialising your idea may be that the shape of the aperture is only one of the things that affects bokeh. The extent to which spherical aberration is corrected - or under- or overcorrected - is also very significant. This, I suspect, is a larger part of why Canon bokeh is 'blobby', Nikon bokeh is (often) 'rough' and Leica, Zeiss, Pentax, and some Minolta bokeh is 'creamy'. Peter |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
About expensive lenses
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 15:44:53 -0000, Bandicoot wrote:
Hmmm, certainly sounds like "this topic, and this topic only" is to say that Nikkors are preferred over Canon lenses because of their bokeh (per Rita) and to disagree that Pentax would be a better choice than either for bokeh and "overall quality". Did you think you and/or Rita were saying something else? One never knows with Rita, but yes, I was saying something else. Do you remember old manual typewriters that had margin release keys? That's close to what I meant by "this topic, and this topic only". Sort of an override, allowing me to have an excuse to refer to her as Rita "Bokehwit". There's no indication in either of your replies that you noticed this. It might have saved you some typing if you had. g |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
About expensive lenses
"ASAAR" wrote in message
news On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 15:44:53 -0000, Bandicoot wrote: Hmmm, certainly sounds like "this topic, and this topic only" is to say that Nikkors are preferred over Canon lenses because of their bokeh (per Rita) and to disagree that Pentax would be a better choice than either for bokeh and "overall quality". Did you think you and/or Rita were saying something else? One never knows with Rita, but yes, I was saying something else. Do you remember old manual typewriters that had margin release keys? That's close to what I meant by "this topic, and this topic only". Sort of an override, allowing me to have an excuse to refer to her as Rita "Bokehwit". There's no indication in either of your replies that you noticed this. It might have saved you some typing if you had. g LOL - though I think my point still stands: "this topic" was bokeh, and bokeh obsessed though Rita may be, on this ocassion she was still plain wrong! As for manual typewriters... there are six of them on top of the bookshelves behind me as I type this, Underwood, Woodstock, Remington and Imperial standards and Remington and Smith Corona folding portables. Marvellous old machines... :-) Peter |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
About expensive lenses | David Dyer-Bennet | Digital Photography | 30 | February 4th 07 07:55 PM |
About expensive lenses | C J Campbell | Digital Photography | 1 | January 30th 07 10:01 PM |
About expensive lenses | MarkČ | Digital Photography | 0 | January 30th 07 08:50 PM |
About expensive lenses | Ernie Willson | Digital Photography | 0 | January 30th 07 07:52 PM |
Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses | Siddhartha Jain | Digital Photography | 97 | March 1st 05 11:17 AM |