Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/01/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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