Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Full frame digital vs large format film plus some equivalence talk...
#11
(10-05-2019, 07:11 AM)Klaus Wrote: I could now point to smartphones that can already produce a nice bokeh with a tiny sensor ...

The few imperfections will be history in a couple of years - the number of phase-detection sensors all over the place will help to improve the algorithms.

Then somebody - like me - would point out as well that faking bokeh is for people who don’t know better, like fake food. This doesn’t mean “real” bokeh would be the winner in a taste competition.

But somehow a “Monet” filter doesn’t make a boring picture a priceless painting, and a 3 k€ lens doesn’t guarantee a meaningful portrait of a person. I can also say my Swiss pocket knife has a screw-driver blade. But to work with I still prefer the real tool.

lt gets rather boring, this “smartphones can do the same as cameras” sentence in every thread about (fast) lenses. To show others a picture of your pet, you don’t need to fake bokeh.
#12
A bokeh is "fake" already - because the human eye doesn't produce one - at least none that you are aware of. ;-)

I, for one, have no fundamental issues with an artificial bokeh. Quality-wise it should easily surpass the "real" ones - e.g. no distorted highlights at the image borders (which I consider to be quite distracting really), perfectly even discs and no nisen bokeh. It should also be easily possible to add slight defects in order to avoid plastic looks.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#13
(10-05-2019, 07:11 AM)Klaus Wrote: I could now point to smartphones that can already produce a nice bokeh with a tiny sensor ...

The few imperfections will be history in a couple of years - the number of phase-detection sensors all over the place will help to improve the algorithms.

   Absolutely UGH!! ...... 
  


Next will come the boomerang iphone ..... you throw it gently, it takes a curved trajectory and a series of artistic inflight images ....... all with perfect bokeh .......... and makes a perfect landing in your hand .. downloading on route images direct to smugmug .....

   that enables us to do away with anything that requires effort .... or talent !!
Dave's clichés
#14
(10-04-2019, 05:07 PM)Brightcolours Wrote:
(10-04-2019, 01:14 PM)couplos Wrote: well quite interesting anyway, as larger sensors than4/5 are probably totaly uncommon,
the rendering is indeed nice,
but IMHO, when you look at the sharpnes/dof
i guess
similar images can be get with some of  the 50mm f0.95 you can find in FF

kr
couplos

50mm f0.95 does not quite get that amount of blur as the aperture is not as big. 180 / f2.8 = 64.3, 50 / 0.95 = 52.6.

I wonder if there are ANY 4 inch by 5 inch large format sensors?

welll this was only a rude aproximative guess,
but then you have, f.e. a 85mm f1.2
or a 135mm f2.0
some more expensive 200mm 2.0 (or the older 1.8)
and i can go further on,

but i guess a 1200 f5.6 lens is not really a portait lens anymore, :-)
......hey Klaus tempted by testing this one....i could rent a donkey for you to carry thie lens

kr
couplos
#15
(10-05-2019, 03:56 PM)couplos Wrote:
(10-04-2019, 05:07 PM)Brightcolours Wrote:
(10-04-2019, 01:14 PM)couplos Wrote: well quite interesting anyway, as larger sensors than4/5 are probably totaly uncommon,
the rendering is indeed nice,
but IMHO, when you look at the sharpnes/dof
i guess
similar images can be get with some of  the 50mm f0.95 you can find in FF

kr
couplos

50mm f0.95 does not quite get that amount of blur as the aperture is not as big. 180 / f2.8 = 64.3, 50 / 0.95 = 52.6.

I wonder if there are ANY 4 inch by 5 inch large format sensors?

welll this was only a rude  aproximative guess,
but then you have, f.e. a 85mm f1.2
or a 135mm f2.0
some more expensive 200mm 2.0 (or the older 1.8)
and i can go further on,

but i guess a 1200 f5.6 lens is not really a portait lens anymore, :-)
......hey Klaus tempted by testing this one....i could rent a donkey for you to carry thie lens

kr
couplos
That does not give similar FOV, does it?
#16
FWIW there are scanning backs for large format cameras, obviously they work only with still subjects
https://www.betterlight.com/products4X5.html
Those bothered by rolling shutter don't even consider those
#17
(10-05-2019, 09:39 AM)Klaus Wrote: A bokeh is "fake" already - because the human eye doesn't produce one - at least none that you are aware of. ;-)

I, for one, have no fundamental issues with an artificial bokeh. Quality-wise it should easily surpass the "real" ones - e.g. no distorted highlights at the image borders (which I consider to be quite distracting really), perfectly even discs and no nisen bokeh. It should also be easily possible to add slight defects in order to avoid plastic looks.

That again is a solid bs coming from a LENS tester. Are you testing eyes or smartphone camera with AI? Because if you don‘t care about the differences 
M then why testing at all? All lenses deliver some kind of a picture, who cares about the differences?

Photography produces a lot of images the human eye isn‘t capable of to see with a single look, or resp. the brain isn‘t able to process quick or slow enough. That was one of the reasons photography became an invention with a wide spread use today.

Apparently you like to forget that over and over again. Few of your posts contain this „who cares anyway” message. If you’re bored by what you’re doing than why do it?

I don’t care wether you can/want live with artificial bokeh. it makes your verdict about bokeh less believable but since it’s a matter of taste anyway... True, lots of your sample pictures could be made with a smartphone, no? So, why bothering with lens tests anymore? Where’s the fun in that, if one can just buy a 1200$ smartphone and gets it done easier? Well, because until today this remains a lie. There still are huge gaps between what smartphones can do and what cameras and lenses are capable of.
#18
(10-07-2019, 06:46 AM)JJ_SO Wrote:
(10-05-2019, 09:39 AM)Klaus Wrote: A bokeh is "fake" already - because the human eye doesn't produce one - at least none that you are aware of. ;-)

I, for one, have no fundamental issues with an artificial bokeh. Quality-wise it should easily surpass the "real" ones - e.g. no distorted highlights at the image borders (which I consider to be quite distracting really), perfectly even discs and no nisen bokeh. It should also be easily possible to add slight defects in order to avoid plastic looks.

That again is a solid bs coming from a LENS tester. Are you testing eyes or smartphone camera with AI? Because if you don‘t care about the differences 
M then why testing at all? All lenses deliver some kind of a picture, who cares about the differences?

Photography produces a lot of images the human eye isn‘t capable of to see with a single look, or resp. the brain isn‘t able to process quick or slow enough. That was one of the reasons photography became an invention with a wide spread use today.

Apparently you like to forget that over and over again. Few of your posts contain this „who cares anyway” message. If you’re bored by what you’re doing than why do it?

I don’t care wether you can/want live with artificial bokeh. it makes your verdict about bokeh less believable but since it’s a matter of taste anyway... True, lots of your sample pictures could be made with a smartphone, no? So, why bothering with lens tests anymore? Where’s the fun in that, if one can just buy a 1200$ smartphone and gets it done easier? Well, because until today this remains a lie. There still are huge gaps between what smartphones can do and what cameras and lenses are capable of.

Unfortunately the gap will narrow extremely fast.
Computing photography is only at its infancy. I don't like it one bit, but that's the sad truth. The days of system cameras are counted (except for some very specific niche needs).
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#19
(10-07-2019, 12:39 PM)thxbb12 Wrote:
(10-07-2019, 06:46 AM)JJ_SO Wrote:
(10-05-2019, 09:39 AM)Klaus Wrote: A bokeh is "fake" already - because the human eye doesn't produce one - at least none that you are aware of. ;-)

I, for one, have no fundamental issues with an artificial bokeh. Quality-wise it should easily surpass the "real" ones - e.g. no distorted highlights at the image borders (which I consider to be quite distracting really), perfectly even discs and no nisen bokeh. It should also be easily possible to add slight defects in order to avoid plastic looks.

That again is a solid bs coming from a LENS tester. Are you testing eyes or smartphone camera with AI? Because if you don‘t care about the differences 
M then why testing at all? All lenses deliver some kind of a picture, who cares about the differences?

Photography produces a lot of images the human eye isn‘t capable of to see with a single look, or resp. the brain isn‘t able to process quick or slow enough. That was one of the reasons photography became an invention with a wide spread use today.

Apparently you like to forget that over and over again. Few of your posts contain this „who cares anyway” message. If you’re bored by what you’re doing than why do it?

I don’t care wether you can/want live with artificial bokeh. it makes your verdict about bokeh less believable but since it’s a matter of taste anyway... True, lots of your sample pictures could be made with a smartphone, no? So, why bothering with lens tests anymore? Where’s the fun in that, if one can just buy a 1200$ smartphone and gets it done easier? Well, because until today this remains a lie. There still are huge gaps between what smartphones can do and what cameras and lenses are capable of.

Unfortunately the gap will narrow extremely fast.
Computing photography is only at its infancy. I don't like it one bit, but that's the sad truth. The days of system cameras are counted (except for some very specific niche needs).

I fully agree with  thxbb12 and  Klaus, but I did not want to disturb BC & JJ_SO party :-)
Yes, the system camera niche will be small and will not have any purpose.  Something like mechanical Swiss watches, their time is not accurate but "Real"
How does it look like for most of the world
1. Still sinking camera business
http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/dw-201908_e.pdf
2. Apple 11 is making another record sales.
#20
I am seeing plenty of simluated bokeh from phones and not the least impressed, as JJ-SO said they are behind maybe they will catch up later but when ? in maybe five or ten years ??? I don't expect a camera I am buying now to serve me that long, a dedicated camera with a decent center size (1 inch or MFT at least) is still the way to go if you want any serious work
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
3 Guest(s)