Ken Norton wrote:
> You'd also have to factor in digital or film photography. The 100/2.8 bokeh
> is AWESOME on film, not so much on digital. The 35/2.8 bokeh is downright
> romantic in either format. The 50/1.8 gives nice shallow DoF on digital and
> bokeh is reasonable, but the 50/3.5 has much nicer bokeh on digital than it
> does on film. The 300/4.5 is out of this world in either format.
>
I'm behind on this thread, so I apologize if someone has already pointed
this out.
I take no position on the above statements, but would like to point out
that they make one big, unwarranted assumption. Or leave out a caveat,
to put it another way.
You say lots of things about "digital" as though they applied to all
DSLRs. Insofar as I can tell, they apply to 4/3, and perhaps only to one
particular, low resolution version of 4/3. Not to say that lower
resolution is "bad", only that it is different.
I'm not saying that they may not be true for higher resolution 4/3, APS
and full frame sensors, only that I don't believe you have actual data
to support those. Bokeh is obviously affected by a myriad of complex and
sometimes subtle factors. To assume they stay the same across sensor
sizes and resolutions without testing seems wrong to me.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|