Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/01/02

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

Subject: [Leica] Re: Bokeh - Leica myth.
From: Jim Brick <jim@brick.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 10:04:02 -0800
References: <B857F59B.1653C%dante@umich.edu>

Gee Henry, you'll read an e-mail post from someone, somewhere, and exclaim 
its virtues, but dismiss a series of articles based upon research, clear 
examples, test methods, etc...

You are really someone who should be listened to...

Not!

Jim



At 08:41 PM 1/1/2002 -0800, Henry Ting wrote:

>Hey that's the best explanation I read on this topic.
>Nobody has proven to me one iota of evidence that
>Leica has this "bokeh" designed and built into their
>lens. Which lead me to experimenting in the first
>place.
>
>--- "dante@umich.edu" <dante@umich.edu> wrote:
> >
> > It is a myth that "bokeh" is an inherent or
> > intentionally-created
> > characteristic of any Leica lens.
> >
> > What we call bokeh is a complex of aberrations in
> > out of focus areas.  As
> > Erwin Puts is quick to point out, for about 75
> > years, Leica has attempted to
> > design all aberrations out of their lenses.  As they
> > become more and more
> > successful at eliminating them, the bokeh gets worse
> > and worse.  If a Leica
> > lens has bokeh at all, it is either the product of
> > technology limitations
> > (in the past) or aberrations that just can't be
> > killed (present line).
> >
> > Perhaps the most obvious evidence that bokeh is not
> > a Leica concept is that
> > we use the Japanese word coined when nostalgic
> > Japanese lens designers
> > wanted to resurrect aberration complexes whose
> > product on film was
> > reminiscent of that of old lens designs.  Otherwise,
> > we would call it
> > "Hintergrundunschärfe," or something like that.
> >
> > > From: Henry Ting <henryting10@yahoo.com>
> > > Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> > > Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 17:44:35 -0800 (PST)
> > > To: Leica-users
> > <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> > > Subject: [Leica] Bokeh  - proven myth ?
> > >
> > >
> > > 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".
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> > --
> > 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

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

In reply to: Message from "dante@umich.edu" <dante@umich.edu> (Re: [Leica] Bokeh - Leica myth.)