RE: [Leica] Re: Bokeh - proven myth ?

["Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>]

Henry,

> 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'd suggest not being so dismissive.  IMO, what you did was not really a
very good experiment, as I outlined in another post.  You can not make a
general conclusion of ALL lenses based on one lense.  That would be foolish.

> 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

Well, these aren't myths.  It is unfortunate, for you, that you have drawn
such erroneous conclusions from.  There ARE differences in bokeh between
different lenses of the same FL and f-stop, it's a fact.  Just because YOU
haven't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

> Where I'm standing, existentialism is what
> exist, proven and controlled after my experiment. Not
> at all quacky, don't you think ?

I am sorry to say, and I don't mean to be demeaning at all, but you aren't a
very good scientist to draw the conclusions you have from your one
experiment.  I AM a scientist (and I know others on the list are too), and
as I said, your experiment does not "prove" anything for all lenses, just
for your ONE lense that you experimented with, and it was, IMO, a "bad"
choice of lenses to perform this type of test on.

I will reminisce back to a test that was done some time ago by a list member
with different lenses, and if I remember right, a LOT of people picked out
the Leica lenses over the Nikon lenses.  Wasn't it Brain who did the
"experiment"?

Austin

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html