*00:01* Why hyperfocal distance is an outdated metric *02:42* Close Focus DOF differences between lenses *07:03* Context, Dimensional Rendering *10:04* Everything in focus and yet very dimensional? *10:38* My 5 most favorite manual lenses *11:46* My favorite Leica (Zeiss) lens
People's obsession with bokeh these days is kind of ridiculous, IMO. Shallow DoF has its place, but I feel it should be limited to certain genres and subjects. With something like sports and wildlife, it makes sense that one might want to separate the subject(s) from a busy background. With general photography, street, vacation photos, it is indeed about making a record. I love looking at the background and environment in old family photos. The items on a table, photographs on the wall, the scenery in the background. Most fashion photos I see are definitely not shot at f/1.4. Nobody wants out of focus ears and nose. Outdoor fashion photography might have the background slightly out of focus for mild subject separation, but it is usually still there to provide context. I started hearing more about DoF table inaccuracies (along with camera shake and diffraction at larger apertures) when higher resolution cameras started to be released. I still refer to the tables, but I only consider them a rough guide, and will just assume they're a stop or two off.
Continuous use of shallow DOF leads to really bad prints (blurry areas in prints often look like ugly mud), and *depressing, sad photos* - claustrophobic, isolated. Yes, it has its place when separation is necessary to strictly emphasize on the subject, but as you say, it's been very overused. I blame the influence of RUclipsrs whose first camera was a digital camera and were mesmerized by the "monitor effect". Fast apertures, historically, were not invented for shallow DOF - they were invented to facilitate adequate film exposure in dark conditions. The shallow DOF was considered in most cases "an *unfortunate* reality of fast apertures", not something desirable.
Well, it was a good comment that extents to a wide subject - "are you shooting for the image and the story, or are you shooting to show off your lens special effects?" The concept of "Gear-Induced Shooting" or "Trend-Induced Shooting" has cost people a lot of money and lost opportunities. People bought 1.4 lenses and it became the same story "you have a hammer so everything is a nail". Take a look at the images of Bresson or Salgado or any other: closed-down aperture, and lots of content/context! They used shallow depth of field *only* in the few cases that fit the story. *The "Afghan Girl" of Steve McCurry of course needs shallow depth of field, and he did that almost every time his subject was "specific portrait", but he closed down in other cases for context* (acadianacenterforthearts.org/events/steve-mccurry-faces-of-innocence/ and look at the pics at www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/photography/photographer-steve-mccurry-book-devotion-b2468378.html ------------------------------- I also have to add that fast lenses were developed to shoot film at night, that was the primary purpose... shallow DOF was considered an *unfortunate* side effect. I have a clip from a Sony Ambassador about that topic in the first 2 minutes in ruclips.net/video/Eh9whW2UNis/видео.html
thank you for sharing so obvious but subtle things or ideas that usually wouldn't stay in my mind by nature. I usually shoot wide open for a single subject no matter what and now see a room to improve my approach )) I believe it still works for closeup portrait but you right that images with context usually wins from reasonable depth of sharpness
It's what you said "for a single subject matter". So your "essay" is basically just one short sentence. Which is fine, as long as you *reasonably fill the frame* with that specific subject, or you'll end up with lots of useless space. For example, the famous picture "the Afghan girl", is 75% occupied by the subject (very little useless space). Though if you check other pictures of him, he also uses f/11 and more many times, to write the proper essay (www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/photography/photographer-steve-mccurry-book-devotion-b2468378.html)
I have a 16mm f/1.4 lens. I can shoot wide or do nice Bokeh shots. It does good at f/8 for nice wide angle shots. I can't wait to see that video about the 125. I have a 135mm f/2.8 FD with EF-M adapter, it is an interesting lens.
If you don't have an M body, then the Summilux 50 1.4 ASPH is a waste of money as the thick sensor glass on a mirrorless camera makes the corners very smeary until about f/8. While on an M body corners are already quite good at f/1.4 and clean up quickly from there. You are paying that $5K premium for the aberration correction of a fast f/1.4 lens that is no longer there with thick sensor glass that all mirrorless cameras use.
The Chinese released essentially a Summilux 50 ASPH clone with the Thypoch Simera 50 1.4. You can play around with that for $600-750 depending on sale. Rendering matches.
The main problem with Leica lenses in digital bodies (other than Leica bodies which have a specially designed sensor), is not only the sensor glass (they perform kind of poorly on Nikon Z too, despite the very thin glass). It's that the old Leica lenses are not completely telecentric. This causes crosstalk on the photosites at the edges. *Leica digital sensors are specifically designed to conform to the chief ray angle of Leica lenses.* Leica lenses do not perform well on any other sensor. -- As far as glass thickness, all Nikon lenses designed for the thicker F-mount sensor glass, perform excellently on the Nikon Z bodies, producing identical images (and they're also great on Canon bodies, both DSLR and mirrorless), so it's not such a decisive factor. But they don't perform well on Fuji GFX bodies, because of the extra space Fuji decided to add below the sensor glass (for dust defocusing), which makes it a bit too much for any non-GF lens to handle. One of the results, you have seen it yourself: the bokeh is 'deformed patches' all over the image, as if someone forgot a wet print in the sun.
@@CameraMystique I have tried many many mirrorless bodies with Leica glass. And I always find there is something missing from the images. Even in the centre of the image, I can’t point to what exactly but the quality is just not the same. I only tried before because my eyes are not what they used to be when it comes to rangefinder, and I find auto focus lenses take the fun out of it for me…so will settle for a magnifier diopter and stick to my m9 or m240.
@@rrasch8125 I'm assuming you read the comment above in this thread. *Problems in the corners* when using Leica lenses on other bodies are due to lack of telecentricity, and *problems in the center* are due to either different thickness of the sensor glass (especially with Sony bodies) or non-precise adapters (we're talking micrometers here... 15 micrometers difference and it's blurry). The solution for the center is to focus with the intended aperture engaged (real-time aperture). But the corners will still be blurry in a non-Leica sensor (telecentricity). Add to that the *different color profiles* and there you have it - just don't use Leica lenses on different bodies.
The Summicron-R 50 that was brought to market in 1976 performs well with thick sensor glass. However, it's really a f/2.4-f/2.8 lens as f/2 is coated with spherical aberrations. Common for a lens of its era. It's still a good lens and good in most categories, but that also means boring. Furthermore, it still commands a hefty price, and you can buy a modern aspherical 50mm f/2 lens for about the same or less with auto focus that will match or outperform it today. The optical design and performance, however, is relevant enough that Leica still sells that 1976 formula in M mount today. The R mount is cheaper and will work better on mirrorless as it was a SLR lens.
I have a flickr account with no images posted (just to follow others). And a tiny facebook account (some family/close friends only) in which I do not post any pics. I stay away from social media except here. And even here on RUclips I post very few images.
Ah ok, I understand. Thanks for your answer. I think we share the use of some manual lenses you mentioned in some of your videos. Maybe you have already seen some pictures on flickr 😉
Yes, to share pictures Flickr is the best. Facebook is great to find funny memes, but the algorithm there recommended to me a group that's worth watching, it's called "Photography without rules".
![[tech] Bright Prints that POP (Part 2), Measure Print Shadows/Highlights, Techniques, 4K](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/txDEHvKxlMo/mqdefault.jpg)
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
![[tech] The 40-43mm "natural field of view" (it's NOT correct - proof included)](/img/1.gif)
*00:01* Why hyperfocal distance is an outdated metric *02:42* Close Focus DOF differences between lenses *07:03* Context, Dimensional Rendering *10:04* Everything in focus and yet very dimensional? *10:38* My 5 most favorite manual lenses *11:46* My favorite Leica (Zeiss) lens
People's obsession with bokeh these days is kind of ridiculous, IMO. Shallow DoF has its place, but I feel it should be limited to certain genres and subjects. With something like sports and wildlife, it makes sense that one might want to separate the subject(s) from a busy background. With general photography, street, vacation photos, it is indeed about making a record. I love looking at the background and environment in old family photos. The items on a table, photographs on the wall, the scenery in the background. Most fashion photos I see are definitely not shot at f/1.4. Nobody wants out of focus ears and nose. Outdoor fashion photography might have the background slightly out of focus for mild subject separation, but it is usually still there to provide context.
I started hearing more about DoF table inaccuracies (along with camera shake and diffraction at larger apertures) when higher resolution cameras started to be released. I still refer to the tables, but I only consider them a rough guide, and will just assume they're a stop or two off.
Continuous use of shallow DOF leads to really bad prints (blurry areas in prints often look like ugly mud), and *depressing, sad photos* - claustrophobic, isolated.
Yes, it has its place when separation is necessary to strictly emphasize on the subject, but as you say, it's been very overused. I blame the influence of RUclipsrs whose first camera was a digital camera and were mesmerized by the "monitor effect". Fast apertures, historically, were not invented for shallow DOF - they were invented to facilitate adequate film exposure in dark conditions. The shallow DOF was considered in most cases "an *unfortunate* reality of fast apertures", not something desirable.
Thank you Sir for replying via this video..🙏🏼
Well, it was a good comment that extents to a wide subject - "are you shooting for the image and the story, or are you shooting to show off your lens special effects?"
The concept of "Gear-Induced Shooting" or "Trend-Induced Shooting" has cost people a lot of money and lost opportunities. People bought 1.4 lenses and it became the same story "you have a hammer so everything is a nail".
Take a look at the images of Bresson or Salgado or any other: closed-down aperture, and lots of content/context! They used shallow depth of field *only* in the few cases that fit the story. *The "Afghan Girl" of Steve McCurry of course needs shallow depth of field, and he did that almost every time his subject was "specific portrait", but he closed down in other cases for context* (acadianacenterforthearts.org/events/steve-mccurry-faces-of-innocence/ and look at the pics at www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/photography/photographer-steve-mccurry-book-devotion-b2468378.html
-------------------------------
I also have to add that fast lenses were developed to shoot film at night, that was the primary purpose... shallow DOF was considered an *unfortunate* side effect. I have a clip from a Sony Ambassador about that topic in the first 2 minutes in ruclips.net/video/Eh9whW2UNis/видео.html
3:40 In our strive for perfection sometimes good is better than perfect.
The good thing about good, is that it's ignored by most. So it remains a 'well-kept secret'.
@@CameraMystique "to be truly satisfied with our own work we must embrace the very imperfections that make it genuine"
Ben Horne
@@davidellinsworth3299 Of course!
thank you for sharing so obvious but subtle things or ideas that usually wouldn't stay in my mind by nature. I usually shoot wide open for a single subject no matter what and now see a room to improve my approach )) I believe it still works for closeup portrait but you right that images with context usually wins from reasonable depth of sharpness
It's what you said "for a single subject matter". So your "essay" is basically just one short sentence. Which is fine, as long as you *reasonably fill the frame* with that specific subject, or you'll end up with lots of useless space. For example, the famous picture "the Afghan girl", is 75% occupied by the subject (very little useless space). Though if you check other pictures of him, he also uses f/11 and more many times, to write the proper essay (www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/photography/photographer-steve-mccurry-book-devotion-b2468378.html)
I have a 16mm f/1.4 lens. I can shoot wide or do nice Bokeh shots. It does good at f/8 for nice wide angle shots. I can't wait to see that video about the 125. I have a 135mm f/2.8 FD with EF-M adapter, it is an interesting lens.
If you don't have an M body, then the Summilux 50 1.4 ASPH is a waste of money as the thick sensor glass on a mirrorless camera makes the corners very smeary until about f/8. While on an M body corners are already quite good at f/1.4 and clean up quickly from there. You are paying that $5K premium for the aberration correction of a fast f/1.4 lens that is no longer there with thick sensor glass that all mirrorless cameras use.
The Chinese released essentially a Summilux 50 ASPH clone with the Thypoch Simera 50 1.4. You can play around with that for $600-750 depending on sale. Rendering matches.
The main problem with Leica lenses in digital bodies (other than Leica bodies which have a specially designed sensor), is not only the sensor glass (they perform kind of poorly on Nikon Z too, despite the very thin glass). It's that the old Leica lenses are not completely telecentric. This causes crosstalk on the photosites at the edges. *Leica digital sensors are specifically designed to conform to the chief ray angle of Leica lenses.* Leica lenses do not perform well on any other sensor.
-- As far as glass thickness, all Nikon lenses designed for the thicker F-mount sensor glass, perform excellently on the Nikon Z bodies, producing identical images (and they're also great on Canon bodies, both DSLR and mirrorless), so it's not such a decisive factor. But they don't perform well on Fuji GFX bodies, because of the extra space Fuji decided to add below the sensor glass (for dust defocusing), which makes it a bit too much for any non-GF lens to handle. One of the results, you have seen it yourself: the bokeh is 'deformed patches' all over the image, as if someone forgot a wet print in the sun.
@@CameraMystique I have tried many many mirrorless bodies with Leica glass. And I always find there is something missing from the images. Even in the centre of the image, I can’t point to what exactly but the quality is just not the same. I only tried before because my eyes are not what they used to be when it comes to rangefinder, and I find auto focus lenses take the fun out of it for me…so will settle for a magnifier diopter and stick to my m9 or m240.
@@rrasch8125 I'm assuming you read the comment above in this thread. *Problems in the corners* when using Leica lenses on other bodies are due to lack of telecentricity, and *problems in the center* are due to either different thickness of the sensor glass (especially with Sony bodies) or non-precise adapters (we're talking micrometers here... 15 micrometers difference and it's blurry). The solution for the center is to focus with the intended aperture engaged (real-time aperture). But the corners will still be blurry in a non-Leica sensor (telecentricity).
Add to that the *different color profiles* and there you have it - just don't use Leica lenses on different bodies.
The Summicron-R 50 that was brought to market in 1976 performs well with thick sensor glass. However, it's really a f/2.4-f/2.8 lens as f/2 is coated with spherical aberrations. Common for a lens of its era. It's still a good lens and good in most categories, but that also means boring. Furthermore, it still commands a hefty price, and you can buy a modern aspherical 50mm f/2 lens for about the same or less with auto focus that will match or outperform it today. The optical design and performance, however, is relevant enough that Leica still sells that 1976 formula in M mount today. The R mount is cheaper and will work better on mirrorless as it was a SLR lens.
Do you have a Flickr account?
I have a flickr account with no images posted (just to follow others). And a tiny facebook account (some family/close friends only) in which I do not post any pics. I stay away from social media except here. And even here on RUclips I post very few images.
Ah ok, I understand. Thanks for your answer. I think we share the use of some manual lenses you mentioned in some of your videos. Maybe you have already seen some pictures on flickr 😉
I don't know why more people don't (still) use Flickr. Far better platform than Instashit and Crapbook.
Yes, to share pictures Flickr is the best. Facebook is great to find funny memes, but the algorithm there recommended to me a group that's worth watching, it's called "Photography without rules".