Moose wrote:
>
> 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.
>
You are absolutely correct in that my own personal experience is mostly
limited to a particular camera, but there are certain tell-tails that I've
learned to identify and can identify them in other digital cameras,
including the full-frame 35mm ones. It's a physics thing which governs all
in-camera sensors.
Less you think I'm being critical of digital, I'm not. I consider the bokeh
of the 100/2.8 on digital to be somewhat flawed. Is this the fault of the
digital sensor? I believe the digital capture mechanism along with several
other factors have changed the game as to what is required of the lens
optics. How could the engineers that designed the Zuiko 100/2.8 back in the
early 1970's know how a digital sensor was going to react? This may be the
governing force behind why MF sensors typically have no AA filters or
microlenses so they may maintain maximum compatibility and consistency with
legacy MF lenses.
The fact is, my 100/2.8 isn't alone. What about the Zuiko 35/2 which is
glorious on film but causes that hot spot in the center of the image on
digital? Or consider the Zuiko 200/4 which isn't exactly a top-dog lens on
the OM system, but totally surpasses all expectations when attached to a
digital body. Or the 35/shift which is also marginally sharp on film, but
becomes near legendary on digital? The Zuiko 24/2.8, which is terrific on
film is a beast to get sharp on digital.
I've also used the term "film" generically. Even among types of film (E-6,
C41 color, B&W) there are huge variations in how a film will react to the
image being projected on it. If you look at the MTF curves you'll see that
Provia, for example, is high resolving and fine grained, but at the 70%
point, you'll see that Provia (and Velvia) are actually quite lackluster
performers. Most ISO 100 and 160 print films will outperform Provia on the
MTF curves!
If you want to see just how variable film, subject and optics can be,
consider this photograph from a past TOPE:
http://www.millennics.com/olympus/tope/tope_show_entry.php?event=14&pic=24
What we have is a high-speed, grainy, B&W film with a textured subject and
even some unusual things caused by the mixture of motion and the grain.
Would this photograph looked differently with a different film or digital
sensor? Of course! Then why does it surprise any of us when we see
variations in bokeh between digital cameras and film cameras?
AG (stirring the optical pot) Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|