Want to see an odd DOF effect?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Apr 24, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Apr 24, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >Two shots. One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8. Same
    >again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E. Check out the (impossible?) extra
    >shallow DOF with the OM lens.
    >
    >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
    >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847



    The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance shorter than
    the distance to the first battery. So, just as with most of your
    so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can be drawn.
     
    Bruce, Apr 24, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 24, 5:43 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >Two shots.  One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8.  Same
    > >again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E.  Check out the (impossible?) extra
    > >shallow DOF with the OM lens.

    >
    > >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
    > >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847

    >
    > The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance shorter than
    > the distance to the first battery.  So, just as with most of your
    > so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can be drawn.


    No, it hasn't been focused shorter.
     
    RichA, Apr 24, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 24, 6:25 am, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:43:14 +0100, Bruce <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >RichA <> wrote:
    > >>Two shots.  One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8.  Same
    > >>again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E.  Check out the (impossible?) extra
    > >>shallow DOF with the OM lens.

    >
    > >>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
    > >>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847

    >
    > >The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance shorter than
    > >the distance to the first battery.  So, just as with most of your
    > >so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can be drawn.

    >
    > I agree.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Eric Stevens


    You people obviously can't tell the difference between sharpness and
    focus errors.
     
    RichA, Apr 24, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:

    >On Apr 24, 5:43 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> RichA <> wrote:
    >> >Two shots.  One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8.  Same
    >> >again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E.  Check out the (impossible?) extra
    >> >shallow DOF with the OM lens.

    >>
    >> >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
    >> >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847

    >>
    >> The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance shorter than
    >> the distance to the first battery.  So, just as with most of your
    >> so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can be drawn.

    >
    >No, it hasn't been focused shorter.



    Oh yes it has.

    You haven't even got the first battery in sharp focus. So this
    "comparison test" tells you absolutely nothing.
     
    Bruce, Apr 24, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 24, 12:41 pm, Paul Furman <> wrote:
    > Eric Stevens wrote:
    > > On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:43:14 +0100, Bruce<>
    > > wrote:

    >
    > >> RichA<>  wrote:
    > >>> Two shots.  One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8.  Same
    > >>> again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E.  Check out the (impossible?) extra
    > >>> shallow DOF with the OM lens.

    >
    > >>>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
    > >>>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847

    >
    > >> The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance shorter than
    > >> the distance to the first battery.  So, just as with most of your
    > >> so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can be drawn.

    >
    > > I agree.

    >
    > Try focusing in the middle so you get some foreground and background OOF
    > and can see from the wood table where the focus is. As shot, the focus
    > is probably in the air in front of the table edge so you can't confirm
    > it. An angled tape measure works very well for this kind of test; you
    > can see where the numbers become illegible:http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehi...otos/edgehill/5357491197/in/set-7215760323110...


    To satisfy the doubters, I'll shoot a ruler on the incline, they way
    the you when calibrating focus. But I've seen this with Olympus
    lenses before.
     
    RichA, Apr 25, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 24, 6:57 pm, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 07:28:45 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Apr 24, 6:25 am, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > >> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:43:14 +0100, Bruce <>
    > >> wrote:

    >
    > >> >RichA <> wrote:
    > >> >>Two shots.  One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8.  Same
    > >> >>again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E.  Check out the (impossible?) extra
    > >> >>shallow DOF with the OM lens.

    >
    > >> >>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
    > >> >>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847

    >
    > >> >The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance shorter than
    > >> >the distance to the first battery.  So, just as with most of your
    > >> >so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can be drawn..

    >
    > >> I agree.

    >
    > >> Regards,

    >
    > >> Eric Stevens

    >
    > >You people obviously can't tell the difference between sharpness and
    > >focus errors.

    >
    > That's partly because of the way you set up the test. You should ave
    > used a longer row of batteries and focussed on one several batteries
    > back from the front.
    >
    > Better still you should have used a scale.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Eric Stevens


    Will do.
     
    RichA, Apr 25, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >On Apr 24, 12:41 pm, Paul Furman <> wrote:
    >> Eric Stevens wrote:
    >> > On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:43:14 +0100, Bruce<>
    >> > wrote:

    >>
    >> >> RichA<>  wrote:
    >> >>> Two shots.  One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8.  Same
    >> >>> again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E.  Check out the (impossible?) extra
    >> >>> shallow DOF with the OM lens.

    >>
    >> >>>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
    >> >>>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847

    >>
    >> >> The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance shorter than
    >> >> the distance to the first battery.  So, just as with most of your
    >> >> so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can be drawn.

    >>
    >> > I agree.

    >>
    >> Try focusing in the middle so you get some foreground and background OOF
    >> and can see from the wood table where the focus is. As shot, the focus
    >> is probably in the air in front of the table edge so you can't confirm
    >> it. An angled tape measure works very well for this kind of test; you
    >> can see where the numbers become illegible:http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehi...otos/edgehill/5357491197/in/set-7215760323110...

    >
    >To satisfy the doubters, I'll shoot a ruler on the incline, they way
    >the you when calibrating focus. But I've seen this with Olympus
    >lenses before.



    You've seen it before? You mean, like we've all seen your inability
    to carry out a properly controlled test before?

    Perhaps you wanted *so much* to see a difference between the two
    lenses that you deliberately focused the Olympus lens short of the
    first battery?
     
    Bruce, Apr 25, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 25, 3:31 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >On Apr 24, 12:41 pm, Paul Furman <> wrote:
    > >> Eric Stevens wrote:
    > >> > On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:43:14 +0100, Bruce<>
    > >> > wrote:

    >
    > >> >> RichA<>  wrote:
    > >> >>> Two shots.  One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8.  Same
    > >> >>> again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E.  Check out the (impossible?) extra
    > >> >>> shallow DOF with the OM lens.

    >
    > >> >>>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
    > >> >>>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847

    >
    > >> >> The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance shorter than
    > >> >> the distance to the first battery.  So, just as with most of your
    > >> >> so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can be drawn.

    >
    > >> > I agree.

    >
    > >> Try focusing in the middle so you get some foreground and background OOF
    > >> and can see from the wood table where the focus is. As shot, the focus
    > >> is probably in the air in front of the table edge so you can't confirm
    > >> it. An angled tape measure works very well for this kind of test; you
    > >> can see where the numbers become illegible:http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/5364815151/in/set-7215760323110......

    >
    > >To  satisfy the doubters, I'll shoot a ruler on the incline, they way
    > >the you when calibrating focus.  But I've seen this with Olympus
    > >lenses before.

    >
    > You've seen it before?  You mean, like we've all seen your inability
    > to carry out a properly controlled test before?
    >
    > Perhaps you wanted *so much* to see a difference between the two
    > lenses that you deliberately focused the Olympus lens short of the
    > first battery?


    So you are saying that my conclusions are wrong? Will you admit YOU
    were wrong when I post the next test?
     
    RichA, Apr 25, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    Peter N Guest

    On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 08:31:33 +0100, Bruce <>
    wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >On Apr 24, 12:41pm, Paul Furman <> wrote:
    > >> Eric Stevens wrote:
    > >> > On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:43:14 +0100,

    Bruce<>
    > >> > wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >> RichA<> wrote:
    > >> >>> Two shots. One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8.

    Same
    > >> >>> again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E. Check out the

    (impossible?) extra
    > >> >>> shallow DOF with the OM lens.
    > >>
    > >> >>>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
    > >> >>>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847
    > >>
    > >> >> The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance

    shorter than
    > >> >> the distance to the first battery. So, just as with most of

    your
    > >> >> so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can

    be drawn.
    > >>
    > >> > I agree.
    > >>
    > >> Try focusing in the middle so you get some foreground and

    background OOF
    > >> and can see from the wood table where the focus is. As shot, the

    focus
    > >> is probably in the air in front of the table edge so you can't

    confirm
    > >> it. An angled tape measure works very well for this kind of

    test; you
    > >> can see where the numbers become

    illegible:http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/5364815151/in/set-72157
    60323110...http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/5357491197/in/set-7215
    760323110...
    > >
    > >To satisfy the doubters, I'll shoot a ruler on the incline, they

    way
    > >the you when calibrating focus. But I've seen this with Olympus
    > >lenses before.





    > You've seen it before? You mean, like we've all seen your inability
    > to carry out a properly controlled test before?



    > Perhaps you wanted *so much* to see a difference between the two
    > lenses that you deliberately focused the Olympus lens short of the
    > first battery?


    Perhaps someone else can duplicate the test. The results will be
    confirmed or not.

    --
    Peter from my Droid
     
    Peter N, Apr 25, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 25, 7:55 pm, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 05:35:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Apr 25, 3:31 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> RichA <> wrote:
    > >> >On Apr 24, 12:41 pm, Paul Furman <> wrote:
    > >> >> Eric Stevens wrote:
    > >> >> > On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:43:14 +0100, Bruce<>
    > >> >> > wrote:

    >
    > >> >> >> RichA<>  wrote:
    > >> >> >>> Two shots.  One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8.  Same
    > >> >> >>> again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E.  Check out the (impossible?) extra
    > >> >> >>> shallow DOF with the OM lens.

    >
    > >> >> >>>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
    > >> >> >>>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847

    >
    > >> >> >> The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance shorterthan
    > >> >> >> the distance to the first battery.  So, just as with most of your
    > >> >> >> so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can be drawn.

    >
    > >> >> > I agree.

    >
    > >> >> Try focusing in the middle so you get some foreground and background OOF
    > >> >> and can see from the wood table where the focus is. As shot, the focus
    > >> >> is probably in the air in front of the table edge so you can't confirm
    > >> >> it. An angled tape measure works very well for this kind of test; you
    > >> >> can see where the numbers become illegible:http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/5364815151/in/set-7215760323110......

    >
    > >> >To  satisfy the doubters, I'll shoot a ruler on the incline, they way
    > >> >the you when calibrating focus.  But I've seen this with Olympus
    > >> >lenses before.

    >
    > >> You've seen it before?  You mean, like we've all seen your inability
    > >> to carry out a properly controlled test before?

    >
    > >> Perhaps you wanted *so much* to see a difference between the two
    > >> lenses that you deliberately focused the Olympus lens short of the
    > >> first battery?

    >
    > >So you are saying that my conclusions are wrong?  Will you admit YOU
    > >were wrong when I post the next test?

    >
    > He is saying you fudged the first exposure to make it demonstrate the
    > aspect in which you so desperately believed.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Eric Stevens


    Well, here is another one. Check out the ruler shots.

    http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/unusual_dof_of_olympus_50mm_lens
     
    RichA, Apr 26, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 26/04/2011 12:36 p.m., RichA wrote:
    > On Apr 25, 7:55 pm, Eric Stevens<> wrote:
    >> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 05:35:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA<>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> On Apr 25, 3:31 am, Bruce<> wrote:
    >>>> RichA<> wrote:
    >>>>> On Apr 24, 12:41 pm, Paul Furman<> wrote:
    >>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:43:14 +0100, Bruce<>
    >>>>>>> wrote:

    >>
    >>>>>>>> RichA<> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> Two shots. One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8. Same
    >>>>>>>>> again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E. Check out the (impossible?) extra
    >>>>>>>>> shallow DOF with the OM lens.

    >>
    >>>>>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
    >>>>>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847

    >>
    >>>>>>>> The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance shorter than
    >>>>>>>> the distance to the first battery. So, just as with most of your
    >>>>>>>> so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can be drawn.

    >>
    >>>>>>> I agree.

    >>
    >>>>>> Try focusing in the middle so you get some foreground and background OOF
    >>>>>> and can see from the wood table where the focus is. As shot, the focus
    >>>>>> is probably in the air in front of the table edge so you can't confirm
    >>>>>> it. An angled tape measure works very well for this kind of test; you
    >>>>>> can see where the numbers become illegible:http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/5364815151/in/set-7215760323110......

    >>
    >>>>> To satisfy the doubters, I'll shoot a ruler on the incline, they way
    >>>>> the you when calibrating focus. But I've seen this with Olympus
    >>>>> lenses before.

    >>
    >>>> You've seen it before? You mean, like we've all seen your inability
    >>>> to carry out a properly controlled test before?

    >>
    >>>> Perhaps you wanted *so much* to see a difference between the two
    >>>> lenses that you deliberately focused the Olympus lens short of the
    >>>> first battery?

    >>
    >>> So you are saying that my conclusions are wrong? Will you admit YOU
    >>> were wrong when I post the next test?

    >>
    >> He is saying you fudged the first exposure to make it demonstrate the
    >> aspect in which you so desperately believed.
    >>
    >> Regards,
    >>
    >> Eric Stevens

    >
    > Well, here is another one. Check out the ruler shots.
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/unusual_dof_of_olympus_50mm_lens
    >

    Wow, that Olympus lens is very soft and has butt-ugly bokeh.
    The Nikkor 50mm f1.8D isn't regarded as being flash for bokeh (but no
    worse than most of these "standard" f1.4 - f2 ~50mm lenses from any
    maker), perhaps the E is much nicer.
     
    Me, Apr 26, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 25, 9:23 pm, Me <> wrote:
    > On 26/04/2011 12:36 p.m., RichA wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Apr 25, 7:55 pm, Eric Stevens<>  wrote:
    > >> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 05:35:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA<>
    > >> wrote:

    >
    > >>> On Apr 25, 3:31 am, Bruce<>  wrote:
    > >>>> RichA<>  wrote:
    > >>>>> On Apr 24, 12:41 pm, Paul Furman<>  wrote:
    > >>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
    > >>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:43:14 +0100, Bruce<>
    > >>>>>>> wrote:

    >
    > >>>>>>>> RichA<>    wrote:
    > >>>>>>>>> Two shots.  One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8.  Same
    > >>>>>>>>> again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E.  Check out the (impossible?) extra
    > >>>>>>>>> shallow DOF with the OM lens.

    >
    > >>>>>>>>>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
    > >>>>>>>>>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847

    >
    > >>>>>>>> The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance shorterthan
    > >>>>>>>> the distance to the first battery.  So, just as with most of your
    > >>>>>>>> so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can be drawn.

    >
    > >>>>>>> I agree.

    >
    > >>>>>> Try focusing in the middle so you get some foreground and background OOF
    > >>>>>> and can see from the wood table where the focus is. As shot, the focus
    > >>>>>> is probably in the air in front of the table edge so you can't confirm
    > >>>>>> it. An angled tape measure works very well for this kind of test; you
    > >>>>>> can see where the numbers become illegible:http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/5364815151/in/set-7215760323110......

    >
    > >>>>> To  satisfy the doubters, I'll shoot a ruler on the incline, theyway
    > >>>>> the you when calibrating focus.  But I've seen this with Olympus
    > >>>>> lenses before.

    >
    > >>>> You've seen it before?  You mean, like we've all seen your inability
    > >>>> to carry out a properly controlled test before?

    >
    > >>>> Perhaps you wanted *so much* to see a difference between the two
    > >>>> lenses that you deliberately focused the Olympus lens short of the
    > >>>> first battery?

    >
    > >>> So you are saying that my conclusions are wrong?  Will you admit YOU
    > >>> were wrong when I post the next test?

    >
    > >> He is saying you fudged the first exposure to make it demonstrate the
    > >> aspect in which you so desperately believed.

    >
    > >> Regards,

    >
    > >> Eric Stevens

    >
    > > Well, here is another one.  Check out the ruler shots.

    >
    > >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/unusual_dof_of_olympus_50mm_lens

    >
    > Wow, that Olympus lens is very soft and has butt-ugly bokeh.
    > The Nikkor 50mm f1.8D isn't regarded as being flash for bokeh (but no
    > worse than most of these "standard" f1.4 - f2 ~50mm lenses from any
    > maker), perhaps the E is much nicer.


    For an economy lens, the E 50's are pretty nice I think.
     
    RichA, Apr 26, 2011
    #13
  14. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 26/04/2011 1:39 p.m., Better Info wrote:
    > On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:23:00 +1200, Me<> wrote:
    >
    >> On 26/04/2011 12:36 p.m., RichA wrote:
    >>> On Apr 25, 7:55 pm, Eric Stevens<> wrote:
    >>>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 05:35:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA<>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Apr 25, 3:31 am, Bruce<> wrote:
    >>>>>> RichA<> wrote:
    >>>>>>> On Apr 24, 12:41 pm, Paul Furman<> wrote:
    >>>>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:43:14 +0100, Bruce<>
    >>>>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> RichA<> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>> Two shots. One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8. Same
    >>>>>>>>>>> again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E. Check out the (impossible?) extra
    >>>>>>>>>>> shallow DOF with the OM lens.
    >>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
    >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847
    >>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance shorter than
    >>>>>>>>>> the distance to the first battery. So, just as with most of your
    >>>>>>>>>> so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can be drawn.
    >>>>
    >>>>>>>>> I agree.
    >>>>
    >>>>>>>> Try focusing in the middle so you get some foreground and background OOF
    >>>>>>>> and can see from the wood table where the focus is. As shot, the focus
    >>>>>>>> is probably in the air in front of the table edge so you can't confirm
    >>>>>>>> it. An angled tape measure works very well for this kind of test; you
    >>>>>>>> can see where the numbers become illegible:http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/5364815151/in/set-7215760323110......
    >>>>
    >>>>>>> To satisfy the doubters, I'll shoot a ruler on the incline, they way
    >>>>>>> the you when calibrating focus. But I've seen this with Olympus
    >>>>>>> lenses before.
    >>>>
    >>>>>> You've seen it before? You mean, like we've all seen your inability
    >>>>>> to carry out a properly controlled test before?
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Perhaps you wanted *so much* to see a difference between the two
    >>>>>> lenses that you deliberately focused the Olympus lens short of the
    >>>>>> first battery?
    >>>>
    >>>>> So you are saying that my conclusions are wrong? Will you admit YOU
    >>>>> were wrong when I post the next test?
    >>>>
    >>>> He is saying you fudged the first exposure to make it demonstrate the
    >>>> aspect in which you so desperately believed.
    >>>>
    >>>> Regards,
    >>>>
    >>>> Eric Stevens
    >>>
    >>> Well, here is another one. Check out the ruler shots.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/unusual_dof_of_olympus_50mm_lens
    >>>

    >> Wow, that Olympus lens is very soft and has butt-ugly bokeh.
    >> The Nikkor 50mm f1.8D isn't regarded as being flash for bokeh (but no
    >> worse than most of these "standard" f1.4 - f2 ~50mm lenses from any
    >> maker), perhaps the E is much nicer.

    >
    > There's very little to no difference in the "quality" of the bokeh between
    > the Olympus and the Yashica. In fact, I prefer the bokeh "quality" of the
    > Olympus lens, though slight the difference may be.
    >
    > A brainless Nikon fanboi are ye? If so, then you might want to consider
    > switching brands to mindlessly rave about if those exposure and aperture
    > settings are true. Nikon only became popular on the sheep-principle,
    > nothing more.
    >
    >

    Even though bokeh is subjective "personal preference", that Olympus lens
    bokeh is very harsh, so if you prefer that, then you're either blind, or
    all your taste is in your mouth.
    And BTW, I made no comment about the Yashica, but now I'll comment that
    it also has butt-ugly bokeh, the old el-cheapo budget "E" Nikkor looks
    much nicer, and I don't care a rat's arse if you think that's a "fanboi"
    comment.
     
    Me, Apr 26, 2011
    #14
  15. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 26, 1:14 pm, Better Info <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 22:01:37 -0500, Rich <> wrote:
    > >Better Info <> wrote in

    >
    > >>>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/unusual_dof_of_olympus_50mm_lens

    >
    > >> The answer is in your shutter speed. The Nikon is lying about its
    > >> aperture. Or you are. <-- The more plausible answer.

    >
    > >The Nikon and the Olympus have the same size front lens aperture and the
    > >Nikon's rear aperture is about 1.5mm smaller in diameter than the Olympus.
    > >However, only testing would determine if that aperture defines the light
    > >cone.  

    >
    > The sizes of the front and rear elements are no indication of the f/ratio..


    The size of the front element "may" not have anything to do with it,
    if they are larger than the prescribed diameter for the focal ratio.
    If a lens is a 50mm f2.0, it needs at least 25mm of clear aperture in
    the front element to reach the f2.0 speed. That's physics that even
    you can't ignore.
     
    RichA, Apr 26, 2011
    #15
  16. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Apr 26, 2:55 pm, Paul Furman <> wrote:
    > RichA wrote:
    > > Eric Stevens wrote:
    > >> RichAwrote:
    > >>> Bruce wrote:
    > >>>> RichA wrote:
    > >>>>> Paul Furman wrote:
    > >>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
    > >>>>>>> Brucewrote:
    > >>>>>>>> RichA wrote:

    >
    > >>>>>>>>> Two shots.  One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8.  Same
    > >>>>>>>>> again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E.  Check out the (impossible?) extra
    > >>>>>>>>> shallow DOF with the OM lens.

    >
    > >>>>>>>>>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
    > >>>>>>>>>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847

    >
    > >>>>>>>> The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance shorterthan
    > >>>>>>>> the distance to the first battery.  So, just as with most of your
    > >>>>>>>> so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can be drawn.

    >
    > >>>>>>> I agree.

    >
    > >>>>>> Try focusing in the middle so you get some foreground and background OOF
    > >>>>>> and can see from the wood table where the focus is. As shot, the focus
    > >>>>>> is probably in the air in front of the table edge so you can't confirm
    > >>>>>> it. An angled tape measure works very well for this kind of test; you
    > >>>>>> can see where the numbers become illegible:
    > >>http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/5364815151/in/set-7215760323110....

    >
    > >>>>> To  satisfy the doubters, I'll shoot a ruler on the incline, theyway
    > >>>>> the you when calibrating focus.  But I've seen this with Olympus
    > >>>>> lenses before.

    >
    > >>>> You've seen it before?  You mean, like we've all seen your inability
    > >>>> to carry out a properly controlled test before?

    >
    > >>>> Perhaps you wanted *so much* to see a difference between the two
    > >>>> lenses that you deliberately focused the Olympus lens short of the
    > >>>> first battery?

    >
    > >>> So you are saying that my conclusions are wrong?  Will you admit YOU
    > >>> were wrong when I post the next test?

    >
    > >> He is saying you fudged the first exposure to make it demonstrate the
    > >> aspect in which you so desperately believed.

    >
    > > Well, here is another one.  Check out the ruler shots.

    >
    > >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/unusual_dof_of_olympus_50mm_lens

    >
    > Thanks, that's an interesting comparison. The Nikkor appears to be
    > slower than the others. It shows 1/13th second vs 1/40th and the OOF
    > blur circles are a lot smaller. The Yashica appears to show astigmatism,
    > where the edges wig out asymmetrically.
    >
    > More interesting is the non-Nikkors appear to have better foreground
    > bokeh than background, perhaps due to over-corrected spherical aberration?


    I have a Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 lens that has decent optical
    quality, but ugly bokeh wide open. Seems to support your observation
    about the Olympus and Yashica linking SA with good bokeh.
     
    Rich, Apr 27, 2011
    #16
  17. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Apr 27, 8:19 pm, Paul Furman <> wrote:
    > Rich wrote:
    > > Paul Furman wrote:
    > >> RichA wrote:
    > >>> Eric Stevens wrote:
    > >>>> RichAwrote:
    > >>>>> Bruce wrote:
    > >>>>>> RichA wrote:
    > >>>>>>> Paul Furman wrote:
    > >>>>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
    > >>>>>>>>> Brucewrote:
    > >>>>>>>>>> RichA wrote:

    >
    > >>>>>>>>>>> Two shots.  One with an Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 at f1.8. Same
    > >>>>>>>>>>> again, with a Nikon 50mm Series E.  Check out the (impossible?) extra
    > >>>>>>>>>>> shallow DOF with the OM lens.

    >
    > >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159846
    > >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/134159847

    >
    > >>>>>>>>>> The Zuiko lens was quite obviously focused at a distance shorter than
    > >>>>>>>>>> the distance to the first battery.  So, just as with most ofyour
    > >>>>>>>>>> so-called "comparison tests", no conclusions of any kind can be drawn.

    >
    > >>>>>>>>> I agree.

    >
    > >>>>>>>> Try focusing in the middle so you get some foreground and background OOF
    > >>>>>>>> and can see from the wood table where the focus is. As shot, thefocus
    > >>>>>>>> is probably in the air in front of the table edge so you can't confirm
    > >>>>>>>> it. An angled tape measure works very well for this kind of test; you
    > >>>>>>>> can see where the numbers become illegible:
    > >>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/5364815151/in/set-7215760323110....

    >
    > >>>>>>> To  satisfy the doubters, I'll shoot a ruler on the incline, they way
    > >>>>>>> the you when calibrating focus.  But I've seen this with Olympus
    > >>>>>>> lenses before.

    >
    > >>>>>> You've seen it before?  You mean, like we've all seen your inability
    > >>>>>> to carry out a properly controlled test before?

    >
    > >>>>>> Perhaps you wanted *so much* to see a difference between the two
    > >>>>>> lenses that you deliberately focused the Olympus lens short of the
    > >>>>>> first battery?

    >
    > >>>>> So you are saying that my conclusions are wrong?  Will you admit YOU
    > >>>>> were wrong when I post the next test?

    >
    > >>>> He is saying you fudged the first exposure to make it demonstrate the
    > >>>> aspect in which you so desperately believed.

    >
    > >>> Well, here is another one.  Check out the ruler shots.

    >
    > >>>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/unusual_dof_of_olympus_50mm_lens

    >
    > >> Thanks, that's an interesting comparison. The Nikkor appears to be
    > >> slower than the others. It shows 1/13th second vs 1/40th and the OOF
    > >> blur circles are a lot smaller. The Yashica appears to show astigmatism,
    > >> where the edges wig out asymmetrically.

    >
    > >> More interesting is the non-Nikkors appear to have better foreground
    > >> bokeh than background, perhaps due to over-corrected spherical aberration?

    >
    > >     I have a Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 lens that has decent optical
    > > quality, but ugly bokeh wide open.  Seems to support your observation
    > > about the Olympus and Yashica linking SA with good bokeh.

    >
    > Only good in the foreground though, which seems odd, or at least
    > normally less useful. The DC (Defocus Control) Nikkors have SA
    > adjustable to make foreground or background softer, whether
    > over-corrected or under-corrected.


    The next new Nikon you ever see that in will cost $2000.
     
    Rich, Apr 28, 2011
    #17
  18. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Paul Furman <> wrote:
    >RichA wrote:>>
    >> Well, here is another one. Check out the ruler shots.
    >> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/unusual_dof_of_olympus_50mm_lens

    >
    >Thanks, that's an interesting comparison. The Nikkor appears to be
    >slower than the others. It shows 1/13th second vs 1/40th and the OOF
    >blur circles are a lot smaller. The Yashica appears to show astigmatism,
    >where the edges wig out asymmetrically.
    >
    >More interesting is the non-Nikkors appear to have better foreground
    >bokeh than background, perhaps due to over-corrected spherical aberration?



    I asked my university professor colleague to look at these. He would
    obviously like to see a more carefully controlled test, but on the
    basis of what is shown, this was his opinion:

    "The Yashica and Olympus lenses display near-identical depth of field
    with only slight differences in boke.

    "The Nikkor [*actually a Nikon Series E] displays a significantly
    greater depth of field, suggesting it is stopped down by between one
    and two stops from wide open, or somewhere between f/2.4 and f/3.5, so
    probably around f/2.8.

    "Assuming identical lighting, the difference in shutter speeds between
    the Nikon shot (1/13 sec) and the other two (1/40 sec) would appear to
    support this. The lens should be examined to ascertain whether the
    iris diaphragm blades are capable of opening fully."


    So the conclusion of a university professor of optical engineering is
    that the test was not properly controlled and the result is therefore
    misleading. Specifically, the lens aperture of the Nikon Series E was
    probably nearer f/2.8 than f/1.8. This alone would explain the
    difference in depth of field.

    Must try harder, Rich. ;-)


    [*For the purpose of this test, there was no significant optical
    difference between the Nikon Series E and contemporary AIS Nikkor. The
    optical design was the same, the only difference was that the Series E
    had cheaper anti-reflection coating. Indeed, the second, later
    version of the Series E optic (with the chrome knurled ring replacing
    the molded black castellated ring) has both optics *and* coatings that
    are in all respects identical with the AIS Nikkor.]
     
    Bruce, May 10, 2011
    #18
  19. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Bruce wrote:
    >
    > > Paul Furman <> wrote:
    > >> RichA wrote:
    > >> Well, here is another one. Check out the ruler shots.
    > >> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/unusual_dof_of_olympus_50mm_lens

    > >
    > > Thanks, that's an interesting comparison. The Nikkor appears to be
    > > slower than the others. It shows 1/13th second vs 1/40th and the OOF
    > > blur circles are a lot smaller. The Yashica appears to show astigmatism,
    > > where the edges wig out asymmetrically.
    > >
    > > More interesting is the non-Nikkors appear to have better foreground
    > > bokeh than background, perhaps due to over-corrected spherical aberration?

    >
    > I asked my university professor colleague to look at these. He would
    > obviously like to see a more carefully controlled test, but on the
    > basis of what is shown, this was his opinion:


    <deleted "proffessorial" double-talk>

    > So the conclusion of a university professor of optical engineering is
    > that the test was not properly controlled and the result is therefore
    > misleading.


    <edited>

    So, in reality, one of "Bruce's" beer buddies (with a "degree" in
    sanitation engineering) was in a drunken stupor, once again.

    Oh, wait a moment..."Whisky-dave" (his fellow Britisher) works at
    a college, does he not? (He's a cafeteria dishwasher, no doubt.)

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, May 12, 2011
    #19
  20. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Bruce <> wrote:
    >Paul Furman <> wrote:
    >>RichA wrote:>>
    >>> Well, here is another one. Check out the ruler shots.
    >>> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/unusual_dof_of_olympus_50mm_lens

    >>
    >>Thanks, that's an interesting comparison. The Nikkor appears to be
    >>slower than the others. It shows 1/13th second vs 1/40th and the OOF
    >>blur circles are a lot smaller. The Yashica appears to show astigmatism,
    >>where the edges wig out asymmetrically.
    >>
    >>More interesting is the non-Nikkors appear to have better foreground
    >>bokeh than background, perhaps due to over-corrected spherical aberration?

    >
    >
    >I asked my university professor colleague to look at these. He would
    >obviously like to see a more carefully controlled test, but on the
    >basis of what is shown, this was his opinion:
    >
    >"The Yashica and Olympus lenses display near-identical depth of field
    >with only slight differences in boke.
    >
    >"The Nikkor [*actually a Nikon Series E] displays a significantly
    >greater depth of field, suggesting it is stopped down by between one
    >and two stops from wide open, or somewhere between f/2.4 and f/3.5, so
    >probably around f/2.8.
    >
    >"Assuming identical lighting, the difference in shutter speeds between
    >the Nikon shot (1/13 sec) and the other two (1/40 sec) would appear to
    >support this. The lens should be examined to ascertain whether the
    >iris diaphragm blades are capable of opening fully."
    >
    >
    >So the conclusion of a university professor of optical engineering is
    >that the test was not properly controlled and the result is therefore
    >misleading. Specifically, the lens aperture of the Nikon Series E was
    >probably nearer f/2.8 than f/1.8. This alone would explain the
    >difference in depth of field.
    >
    >Must try harder, Rich. ;-)
    >
    >
    >[*For the purpose of this test, there was no significant optical
    >difference between the Nikon Series E and contemporary AIS Nikkor. The
    >optical design was the same, the only difference was that the Series E
    >had cheaper anti-reflection coating. Indeed, the second, later
    >version of the Series E optic (with the chrome knurled ring replacing
    >the molded black castellated ring) has both optics *and* coatings that
    >are in all respects identical with the AIS Nikkor.]



    Poor Rich.

    He's unable to reply because he has his head in the sand. ;-)
     
    Bruce, May 13, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. chibitul

    DOF on P&S digicams

    chibitul, Sep 13, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    468
    Jeremy
    Sep 16, 2003
  2. Rick Altman

    I want people to see what I see...

    Rick Altman, Oct 3, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    542
    Mark B.
    Oct 4, 2003
  3. Faiser

    DoF preview

    Faiser, Oct 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    825
    Godfrey
    Oct 25, 2003
  4. RichA

    Kind of odd IR image effect

    RichA, Sep 30, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    281
    Kennedy McEwen
    Sep 30, 2010
  5. Paul Ciszek

    Re: Google app for DOF effect in phone cameras.

    Paul Ciszek, Apr 18, 2014, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    90
    Paul Ciszek
    Apr 24, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page