Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/01/01

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Bokeh - proven myth ?
From: Henry Ting <henryting10@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 19:23:44 -0800 (PST)

I'd rather not. 
In this world, the foundation of knowledge is
absolute. No magazine article can deter ones knowledge
base, especially after I went through the effort of
controlled experimenting. I stand by my results both
in theory as well as in the "laws of physics". When
picture image is in focus, it will be sharp; likewise
the blurriness of out of focus image are equally
identical in any similar focal-length lens. Of course
lens qualities from different manufacturers are
different. Color saturations, resolution from center
to edge etc could all be different. But these
variables have nothing to do with "Bokeh" when the
"laws of physics" is applicable equally. Now we can
talk about myths or some editorial writings from
magazine that will argue the "black hole" even bends
light. I'm just trying to diffuse some of this Leica
myth, which even surpass the realm of "laws of
physics". Where I'm standing, existentialism is what
exist, proven and controlled after my experiment. Not
at all quacky, don't you think ?

- --- Jim Brick <jim@brick.org> wrote:
> Get a copy of the May/June 1997 Photo Techniques.
> Much of the magazine is 
> devoted to Bokeh. Articles are: "What is Bokeh,"
> "Bokeh Terminology," and 
> "A Technical View of Bokeh."
> 
> Read this to clear up anything you don't understand.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> At 05:44 PM 1/1/2002 -0800, Henry Ting wrote:
> 
> >This is going to be controversial.
> >I read about a lot of Leica lens offering a
> distinct
> >"Bokeh" image that's missing from lens of other
> makes.
> >I was confused as to how could this be possible,
> >unless outside of physics' existentialism, Leica
> lens
> >have a metaphysical spirit that the likes of Nikon
> or
> >Zeiss lack.
> >
> >To prove my point, I did some experiment.
> >I used my Leica M6 with the 35 Summicron and a
> Nikon
> >F2 with a 35mm lens. I set them up both on tripods
> >with the same camera to object distance in shooting
> my
> >car head on at a range of only 5 feet. The
> background
> >was a cul-de-sac of our neighborhood with florals
> and
> >houses and images that I am familiar with.
> >Then I shot the pictures with Ektachome 64 with the
> >aperture of both these cameras wide-open. I
> controlled
> >the session with everything identical from the 2
> >cameras except the lens (Leica vs Nikon).
> >
> >I got the slides back right before X'mas and here
> are
> >the results :
> >
> >I setup my projector against a white screen at 15
> feet
> >distance, the image of the Leica lens show a hint
> of
> >warmth and the same amount of details from the
> >highlights to the shade compared with the Nikon.
> The
> >area of the car's hood which were the focal point,
> >both images are tack sharp. The Nikon image shows a
> >bit more contrast, but very minor when everything
> is
> >in sharp focus. However, the image behind the car's
> >hood, extending further back from medium distance
> all
> >the way back to infinity, the images get
> progressively
> >blurry as the distance increase. Using some florals
> >and our neighbors front yard, the out of focus
> image
> >from both the Nikon and the Leica were 100 percent
> >identical. Even the sizes of the Bokeh images were
> of
> >the same size (we all know the image gets
> >progressively bigger as it comes into focus). At
> least
> >from my eyes, I cannot see any differences from the
> >highlights to the shades. Both these pictures were
> >taken at F2, 1/1000 sec with the same subject to
> >camera distance and the same film used.
> >
> >The result?   No differences whatsoever. I think
> the
> >reverse is true. If both lens are of the same focal
> >length, the graduality from sharpness to blurryness
> >should not be different at all. Based on the law of
> >physics this should apply to every lens.
> >I for once proved to myself there is no difference
> and
> >for anyone that claim there is a "Bokeh" difference
> >between Leica and Nikon lens, my only comment from
> >here onwards is "More power to them".
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, see
http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from S Dimitrov <sld@earthlink.net> (Re: [Leica] Re: Bokeh - proven myth ?)
Reply from Ted Grant <tedgrant@shaw.ca> ([Leica] Bokeh - proven myth ? My goodness not again? ;-))