This topic is in the 2023 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2023Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
p.4 #1Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
lensfan wrote:
Yes, I know you can get this effect. Please show me a real photograph taken by you where it is a problem.First and third images here:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1697615/36#16072153
Yes, it's a bokeh effect. Does it ruin the images? Apparently not for the photographer since he posted the images as examples of what he likes about the rendering and bokeh of the 50/1.2 GM.
Maybe re-read The Princess and the Pea?
Edited on Aug 31, 2023 at 07:19 PM · View previous versions
chiron wrote
jeffbuzz wrote
Is it a problem? You decide.https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1697615/36#16072153
Yes, it's a bokeh effect. Does it ruin the images? Apparently not for the photographer since he posted the images as examples of what he likes about the rendering and bokeh of the 50/1.2 GM.
Maybe re-read The Princess and the Pea?
Edited on Aug 31, 2023 at 07:19 PM · View previous versions
Aug 31, 2023 at 07:13 PM
p.4 #2Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
chiron wrote:
Yes, I know you can get this effect. Please show me a real photograph taken by you where it is a problem.First and third images here:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1697615/36#16072153Yes, it's a bokeh effect. Does it ruin the images? Apparently not for the photographer since he posted the images as examples of what he likes about the 50/1.2 GM.
Maybe re-read The Princess and the Pea?
I mean, it is really noticeable. Depends on a point of view. Once you know what you see there, there is a higher chance you would try to avoid it.
lensfan wrote
chiron wrote
jeffbuzz wrote
Is it a problem? You decide.https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1697615/36#16072153
Maybe re-read The Princess and the Pea?
I mean, it is really noticeable. Depends on a point of view. Once you know what you see there, there is a higher chance you would try to avoid it.
Aug 31, 2023 at 07:19 PM
p.4 #3Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
lensfan wrote:
Yes, I know you can get this effect. Please show me a real photograph taken by you where it is a problem.First and third images here:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1697615/36#16072153Yes, it's a bokeh effect. Does it ruin the images? Apparently not for the photographer since he posted the images as examples of what he likes about the 50/1.2 GM.
Maybe re-read The Princess and the Pea?I mean, it is really noticeable. Depends on a point of view. Once you know what you see there, there is a higher chance you would try to avoid it.
The photographer posted these specifically as examples of what he likes about the rendering and bokeh of the 50/1.2 GM. For him, the photographs are not ruined but excellent. And your problem with the images is not the main thing that I would respond to in either photograph. But yes, they are bokeh effects. That's why I mention The Princess and the Pea.
Sometime take a look at how many of Cartier-Bresson's photographs have poor focus or subject movement. Doesn't seem to have held him back.
Of course, you and everyone else are entitled to their own opinions on this. For someone wtih your opinions, the fix would be to simply use an ND filter or different ISO to lower the shutter speed three or four stops.
Edited on Aug 31, 2023 at 07:35 PM · View previous versions
chiron wrote
lensfan wrote
chiron wrote
jeffbuzz wrote
Is it a problem? You decide.https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1697615/36#16072153
Maybe re-read The Princess and the Pea?
The photographer posted these specifically as examples of what he likes about the rendering and bokeh of the 50/1.2 GM. For him, the photographs are not ruined but excellent. And your problem with the images is not the main thing that I would respond to in either photograph. But yes, they are bokeh effects. That's why I mention The Princess and the Pea.
Sometime take a look at how many of Cartier-Bresson's photographs have poor focus or subject movement. Doesn't seem to have held him back.
Of course, you and everyone else are entitled to their own opinions on this. For someone wtih your opinions, the fix would be to simply use an ND filter or different ISO to lower the shutter speed three or four stops.
Edited on Aug 31, 2023 at 07:35 PM · View previous versions
Aug 31, 2023 at 07:23 PM
p.4 #4Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
jeffbuzz wrote:
Seems like below 1/1000 will be impossible to tell (in real photos), and even 1/2000 would be very tough to tell. Any higher than that might stand out. Apart from sports (and neither of these variants are targeting sports), what applications would involve fast apertures and high shutter speeds? Do wedding photographers find themselves shooting over 1/2000? Then again if you're a wedding photographer you probably wouldn't be shooting with just one card slot.
Both cameras still seem like fantastic travel and landscape cameras to me. But I'm open to the fact that I could be missing something.HSS (High Speed Sync) with large aperture lenses. Rather common use case and a feature that Sony specifically touts.
Would someone using HSS be using a camera with only 1 card slot? I literally have no clue about HSS so legit question?
gunmetal wrote
jeffbuzz wrote
Is it a problem? You decide.Both cameras still seem like fantastic travel and landscape cameras to me. But I'm open to the fact that I could be missing something.
Would someone using HSS be using a camera with only 1 card slot? I literally have no clue about HSS so legit question?
Aug 31, 2023 at 07:33 PM
p.4 #5Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
chiron wrote:
Yes, I know you can get this effect. Please show me a real photograph taken by you where it is a problem.First and third images here:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1697615/36#16072153Yes, it's a bokeh effect. Does it ruin the images? Apparently not for the photographer since he posted the images as examples of what he likes about the 50/1.2 GM.
Maybe re-read The Princess and the Pea?I mean, it is really noticeable. Depends on a point of view. Once you know what you see there, there is a higher chance you would try to avoid it.The photographer posted these specifically as examples of what he likes about the rendering and bokeh of the 50/1.2 GM. For him, the photographs are not ruined but excellent. And your problem with the images is not the main thing that I would respond to in either photograph. But yes, they are bokeh effects. That's why I mention The Princess and the Pea.
Sometime take a look at how many of Cartier-Bresson's photographs have poor focus or subject movement. Doesn't seem to have held him back.
Of course, you and everyone else are entitled to their own opinions on this. For someone...Show more →
I don’t think this is actually subjective…. There are commonly accepted standards as to what is a good photo and what is a bad one….
Unless the photos intention is to draw attention to weirdly shaped bokeh balls…. Anything that distracts the eye from the subject is bad. I mean the photographer can have lower standards and live with it but I don’t think it is subjective that the cut bokeh balls are bad.
We are not even pixel peeping or comparing corner sharpness at f1.4… the cut bokeh balls is literally so obvious… it is like the princess sleeping on a durian not a pea. U must be blind not to see it.
lensfan wrote
chiron wrote
lensfan wrote
chiron wrote
jeffbuzz wrote
Is it a problem? You decide.https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1697615/36#16072153
Maybe re-read The Princess and the Pea?
Sometime take a look at how many of Cartier-Bresson's photographs have poor focus or subject movement. Doesn't seem to have held him back.
Of course, you and everyone else are entitled to their own opinions on this. For someone...Show more →
I don’t think this is actually subjective…. There are commonly accepted standards as to what is a good photo and what is a bad one….
Unless the photos intention is to draw attention to weirdly shaped bokeh balls…. Anything that distracts the eye from the subject is bad. I mean the photographer can have lower standards and live with it but I don’t think it is subjective that the cut bokeh balls are bad.
We are not even pixel peeping or comparing corner sharpness at f1.4… the cut bokeh balls is literally so obvious… it is like the princess sleeping on a durian not a pea. U must be blind not to see it.
Aug 31, 2023 at 07:41 PM
p.4 #6Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
wind30 wrote:
First and third images here:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1697615/36#16072153Yes, it's a bokeh effect. Does it ruin the images? Apparently not for the photographer since he posted the images as examples of what he likes about the 50/1.2 GM.
Maybe re-read The Princess and the Pea?I mean, it is really noticeable. Depends on a point of view. Once you know what you see there, there is a higher chance you would try to avoid it.The photographer posted these specifically as examples of what he likes about the rendering and bokeh of the 50/1.2 GM. For him, the photographs are not ruined but excellent. And your problem with the images is not the main thing that I would respond to in either photograph. But yes, they are bokeh effects. That's why I mention The Princess and the Pea.
Sometime take a look at how many of Cartier-Bresson's photographs have poor focus or subject movement. Doesn't seem to have held him back.
Of course, you and everyone else are entitled to their own opinions on this. For someone wtih your opinions, the fix would be to simply use an ND filter or different ISO to lower the shutter speed three or four stops.I don’t think this is actually subjective…. There are commonly accepted standards as to what is a good photo and what is a bad one….
Unless the photos intention is to draw attention to weirdly shaped bokeh balls…. Anything that distracts the eye from the subject is bad. I mean the photographer can have lower standards and live with it but I don’t think it is subjective that the cut bokeh balls are bad.
We are not even pixel peeping or comparing corner sharpness at f1.4… the cut bokeh balls is literally so obvious… it is like the princess sleeping on...Show more →
I see it. I don't particularly care about it, nor is it what draws my attention in the photograph. But my main point is that it does not ruin the photograph for the photographer, who posted it specifically as an example of what he likes about the bokeh and rendering of the 50mm/1.2 GM.
My secondary point is that the problem is easily avoided without having to use something other than EFCS. [EDIT TO REMOVE MY DUMBNESS NOTED BELOW by TSDEVINE] One can use an ND filter to achieve the same or similar shutter speed. Problem solved. In my view, it is very excessive to use a rare and easily managed problem like this as a reason to not use EFCS or to not use a camera that relies on it.
You of course are entitled to your rules for your own photographs and I think you should feel free to use or not use any camera you like. But I am not sure that the photographer who took this picture cares about your rules.
I am curious what Mark Galer might say about the bokeh in this image. I certainly don't know, but I suspect from what he has said elsewhere that he might say that he didn't really care about the cut off bokeh balls, that the image was still lovely and striking, and that he understood that other people might think differently about it. Or perhaps he would hate the cut-off balls. I'm sure at some point he must have discussed this, but I haven't found it and he really didn't raise it in his discussion of bokeh and EFCS in the video that I linked (which makes me think that he doesn't care much about it).
Anyway, a perfectly round and transparent bokeh ball is also an artificial optical effect that doesn't match, as far as I can tell, the way our eyes and brain actually see. The desire for a round and transparent bokeh ball is really not a rule, it is a convention that many people share.
Edited on Aug 31, 2023 at 09:05 PM · View previous versions
chiron wrote
lensfan wrote
chiron wrote
lensfan wrote
chiron wrote
Yes, I know you can get this effect. Please show me a real photograph taken by you where it is a problem.https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1697615/36#16072153
Maybe re-read The Princess and the Pea?
Sometime take a look at how many of Cartier-Bresson's photographs have poor focus or subject movement. Doesn't seem to have held him back.
Of course, you and everyone else are entitled to their own opinions on this. For someone wtih your opinions, the fix would be to simply use an ND filter or different ISO to lower the shutter speed three or four stops.
Unless the photos intention is to draw attention to weirdly shaped bokeh balls…. Anything that distracts the eye from the subject is bad. I mean the photographer can have lower standards and live with it but I don’t think it is subjective that the cut bokeh balls are bad.
We are not even pixel peeping or comparing corner sharpness at f1.4… the cut bokeh balls is literally so obvious… it is like the princess sleeping on...Show more →
I see it. I don't particularly care about it, nor is it what draws my attention in the photograph. But my main point is that it does not ruin the photograph for the photographer, who posted it specifically as an example of what he likes about the bokeh and rendering of the 50mm/1.2 GM.
My secondary point is that the problem is easily avoided without having to use something other than EFCS. [EDIT TO REMOVE MY DUMBNESS NOTED BELOW by TSDEVINE] One can use an ND filter to achieve the same or similar shutter speed. Problem solved. In my view, it is very excessive to use a rare and easily managed problem like this as a reason to not use EFCS or to not use a camera that relies on it.
You of course are entitled to your rules for your own photographs and I think you should feel free to use or not use any camera you like. But I am not sure that the photographer who took this picture cares about your rules.
I am curious what Mark Galer might say about the bokeh in this image. I certainly don't know, but I suspect from what he has said elsewhere that he might say that he didn't really care about the cut off bokeh balls, that the image was still lovely and striking, and that he understood that other people might think differently about it. Or perhaps he would hate the cut-off balls. I'm sure at some point he must have discussed this, but I haven't found it and he really didn't raise it in his discussion of bokeh and EFCS in the video that I linked (which makes me think that he doesn't care much about it).
Anyway, a perfectly round and transparent bokeh ball is also an artificial optical effect that doesn't match, as far as I can tell, the way our eyes and brain actually see. The desire for a round and transparent bokeh ball is really not a rule, it is a convention that many people share.
Edited on Aug 31, 2023 at 09:05 PM · View previous versions
Aug 31, 2023 at 08:53 PM
p.4 #7Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
Going up 3 stops isn't going to give you a slower shutter speed, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.
chiron wrote:
wind30 wrote
chiron wrote
lensfan wrote
chiron wrote
lensfan wrote
First and third images here:https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1697615/36#16072153
Maybe re-read The Princess and the Pea?
Sometime take a look at how many of Cartier-Bresson's photographs have poor focus or subject movement. Doesn't seem to have held him back.
Of course, you and everyone else are entitled to their own opinions on this. For someone wtih your opinions, the fix would be to simply use an ND filter or different ISO to lower the shutter speed three or four stops.
Unless the photos intention is to draw attention to weirdly shaped bokeh balls…. Anything that distracts the eye from the subject is bad. I mean the photographer can have lower standards and live with it but I don’t think it is subjective that the cut bokeh balls are bad.
We are not even pixel peeping or comparing corner sharpness at f1.4… the cut bokeh balls is literally so obvious… it is like the princess sleeping on a durian not a pea. U must be blind not to see it.
My secondary point is that the problem is easily avoided without having to use something other than EFCS. One can either go up three stops on ISO to 800, reducing the shutter speed to 1/800th of a second. Or one can use an ND filter to achieve...Show more →
Aug 31, 2023 at 08:56 PM
p.4 #8Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
tsdevine wrote:
Going up 3 stops isn't going to give you a slower shutter speed, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.
Maybe re-read The Princess and the Pea?I mean, it is really noticeable. Depends on a point of view. Once you know what you see there, there is a higher chance you would try to avoid it.The photographer posted these specifically as examples of what he likes about the rendering and bokeh of the 50/1.2 GM. For him, the photographs are not ruined but excellent. And your problem with the images is not the main thing that I would respond to in either photograph. But yes, they are bokeh effects. That's why I mention The Princess and the Pea.
Sometime take a look at how many of Cartier-Bresson's photographs have poor focus or subject movement. Doesn't seem to have held him back.
Of course, you and everyone else are entitled to their own opinions on this. For someone wtih your opinions, the fix would be to simply use an ND filter or different ISO to lower the shutter speed three or four stops.I don’t think this is actually subjective…. There are commonly accepted standards as to what is a good photo and what is a bad one….
Unless the photos intention is to draw attention to weirdly shaped bokeh balls…. Anything that distracts the eye from the subject is bad. I mean the photographer can have lower standards and live with it but I don’t think it is subjective that the cut bokeh balls are bad.
We are not even pixel peeping or comparing corner sharpness at f1.4… the cut bokeh balls is literally so obvious… it is like the princess sleeping on a durian not a pea. U must be blind not to see it.I see it. I don't particularly care about it, nor is it what draws my attention in the photograph. But my main point is that it does not ruin the photograph for the photographer, who posted it specifically as an example of what he likes about the bokeh and rendering of the 50mm/1.2 GM.
My secondary point is that the problem is easily avoided without having to use something other than EFCS. One can either go up three stops on ISO to 800, reducing the shutter speed to 1/800th of a second. Or one can use an ND filter to achieve the same or similar shutter speed. Problem solved. In my view, it is very excessive to use a rare and easily managed problem like this as a reason to not use EFCS or to not use a camera that relies on it.
You of course are entitled to your rules for your own photographs and I think you should feel free to use or not use any camera you like. But I am not sure that the photographer who took this picture cares about your rules.
I am curious what Mark Galer might say about the bokeh in this image. I certainly don't know, but I suspect from what he has said elsewhere that he might say that he didn't really care about the cut off bokeh balls, that the image was still lovely and striking, and that he understood that other people might think differently about it. Or perhaps he would hate the cut-off balls. I'm sure at some point he must have discussed this, but I haven't found it and he really didn't raise it in his discussion of bokeh and EFCS in the video that I linked.
Anyway, a perfectly round and transparent bokeh ball is also an artificial optical effect that doesn't match, as far as I can tell, the way our eyes and brain actually see. The desire for a round and transparent bokeh ball is really not a rule, it is a convention that many people share.
Of course you are right. You'd need the ND filter.
Going up 3 stops isn't going to give you a slower shutter speed, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.
chiron wrote
wind30 wrote
chiron wrote
lensfan wrote
chiron wrote
Yes, it's a bokeh effect. Does it ruin the images? Apparently not for the photographer since he posted the images as examples of what he likes about the 50/1.2 GM.Maybe re-read The Princess and the Pea?
Sometime take a look at how many of Cartier-Bresson's photographs have poor focus or subject movement. Doesn't seem to have held him back.
Of course, you and everyone else are entitled to their own opinions on this. For someone wtih your opinions, the fix would be to simply use an ND filter or different ISO to lower the shutter speed three or four stops.
Unless the photos intention is to draw attention to weirdly shaped bokeh balls…. Anything that distracts the eye from the subject is bad. I mean the photographer can have lower standards and live with it but I don’t think it is subjective that the cut bokeh balls are bad.
We are not even pixel peeping or comparing corner sharpness at f1.4… the cut bokeh balls is literally so obvious… it is like the princess sleeping on a durian not a pea. U must be blind not to see it.
My secondary point is that the problem is easily avoided without having to use something other than EFCS. One can either go up three stops on ISO to 800, reducing the shutter speed to 1/800th of a second. Or one can use an ND filter to achieve the same or similar shutter speed. Problem solved. In my view, it is very excessive to use a rare and easily managed problem like this as a reason to not use EFCS or to not use a camera that relies on it.
You of course are entitled to your rules for your own photographs and I think you should feel free to use or not use any camera you like. But I am not sure that the photographer who took this picture cares about your rules.
I am curious what Mark Galer might say about the bokeh in this image. I certainly don't know, but I suspect from what he has said elsewhere that he might say that he didn't really care about the cut off bokeh balls, that the image was still lovely and striking, and that he understood that other people might think differently about it. Or perhaps he would hate the cut-off balls. I'm sure at some point he must have discussed this, but I haven't found it and he really didn't raise it in his discussion of bokeh and EFCS in the video that I linked.
Anyway, a perfectly round and transparent bokeh ball is also an artificial optical effect that doesn't match, as far as I can tell, the way our eyes and brain actually see. The desire for a round and transparent bokeh ball is really not a rule, it is a convention that many people share.
Of course you are right. You'd need the ND filter.
Aug 31, 2023 at 09:00 PM
p.4 #9Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
Yeah, you'd choose the lowest ISO and use an ND.
chiron wrote:
tsdevine wrote
Going up 3 stops isn't going to give you a slower shutter speed, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.chiron wrote
wind30 wrote
chiron wrote
lensfan wrote
I mean, it is really noticeable. Depends on a point of view. Once you know what you see there, there is a higher chance you would try to avoid it.Sometime take a look at how many of Cartier-Bresson's photographs have poor focus or subject movement. Doesn't seem to have held him back.
Of course, you and everyone else are entitled to their own opinions on this. For someone wtih your opinions, the fix would be to simply use an ND filter or different ISO to lower the shutter speed three or four stops.
Unless the photos intention is to draw attention to weirdly shaped bokeh balls…. Anything that distracts the eye from the subject is bad. I mean the photographer can have lower standards and live with it but I don’t think it is subjective that the cut bokeh balls are bad.
We are not even pixel peeping or comparing corner sharpness at f1.4… the cut bokeh balls is literally so obvious… it is like the princess sleeping on a durian not a pea. U must be blind not to see it.
My secondary point is that the problem is easily avoided without having to use something other than EFCS. One can either go up three stops on ISO to 800, reducing the shutter speed to 1/800th of a second. Or one can use an ND filter to achieve the same or similar shutter speed. Problem solved. In my view, it is very excessive to use a rare and easily managed problem like this as a reason to not use EFCS or to not use a camera that relies on it.
You of course are entitled to your rules for your own photographs and I think you should feel free to use or not use any camera you like. But I am not sure that the photographer who took this picture cares about your rules.
I am curious what Mark Galer might say about the bokeh in this image. I certainly don't know, but I suspect from what he has said elsewhere that he might say that he didn't really care about the cut off bokeh balls, that the image was still lovely and striking, and that he understood that other people might think differently about it. Or perhaps he would hate the cut-off balls. I'm sure at some point he must have discussed this, but I haven't found it and he really didn't raise it in his discussion of bokeh and EFCS in the video that I linked.
Anyway, a perfectly round and transparent bokeh ball is also an artificial optical effect that doesn't match, as far as I can tell, the way our eyes and brain actually see. The desire for a round and transparent bokeh ball is really not a rule, it is a convention that many people share.
Aug 31, 2023 at 09:01 PM
p.4 #10Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
tsdevine wrote:
Yeah, you'd choose the lowest ISO and use an ND.
Sometime take a look at how many of Cartier-Bresson's photographs have poor focus or subject movement. Doesn't seem to have held him back.
Of course, you and everyone else are entitled to their own opinions on this. For someone wtih your opinions, the fix would be to simply use an ND filter or different ISO to lower the shutter speed three or four stops.I don’t think this is actually subjective…. There are commonly accepted standards as to what is a good photo and what is a bad one….
Unless the photos intention is to draw attention to weirdly shaped bokeh balls…. Anything that distracts the eye from the subject is bad. I mean the photographer can have lower standards and live with it but I don’t think it is subjective that the cut bokeh balls are bad.
We are not even pixel peeping or comparing corner sharpness at f1.4… the cut bokeh balls is literally so obvious… it is like the princess sleeping on a durian not a pea. U must be blind not to see it.I see it. I don't particularly care about it, nor is it what draws my attention in the photograph. But my main point is that it does not ruin the photograph for the photographer, who posted it specifically as an example of what he likes about the bokeh and rendering of the 50mm/1.2 GM.
My secondary point is that the problem is easily avoided without having to use something other than EFCS. One can either go up three stops on ISO to 800, reducing the shutter speed to 1/800th of a second. Or one can use an ND filter to achieve the same or similar shutter speed. Problem solved. In my view, it is very excessive to use a rare and easily managed problem like this as a reason to not use EFCS or to not use a camera that relies on it.
You of course are entitled to your rules for your own photographs and I think you should feel free to use or not use any camera you like. But I am not sure that the photographer who took this picture cares about your rules.
I am curious what Mark Galer might say about the bokeh in this image. I certainly don't know, but I suspect from what he has said elsewhere that he might say that he didn't really care about the cut off bokeh balls, that the image was still lovely and striking, and that he understood that other people might think differently about it. Or perhaps he would hate the cut-off balls. I'm sure at some point he must have discussed this, but I haven't found it and he really didn't raise it in his discussion of bokeh and EFCS in the video that I linked.
Anyway, a perfectly round and transparent bokeh ball is also an artificial optical effect that doesn't match, as far as I can tell, the way our eyes and brain actually see. The desire for a round and transparent bokeh ball is really not a rule, it is a convention that many people share.Of course you are right. You'd need the ND filter.
Indeed. I edited my post to remove my dumbness or brain fart or whatever it was. Thank you!
Yeah, you'd choose the lowest ISO and use an ND.
chiron wrote
tsdevine wrote
Going up 3 stops isn't going to give you a slower shutter speed, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.chiron wrote
wind30 wrote
chiron wrote
The photographer posted these specifically as examples of what he likes about the rendering and bokeh of the 50/1.2 GM. For him, the photographs are not ruined but excellent. And your problem with the images is not the main thing that I would respond to in either photograph. But yes, they are bokeh effects. That's why I mention The Princess and the Pea.Sometime take a look at how many of Cartier-Bresson's photographs have poor focus or subject movement. Doesn't seem to have held him back.
Of course, you and everyone else are entitled to their own opinions on this. For someone wtih your opinions, the fix would be to simply use an ND filter or different ISO to lower the shutter speed three or four stops.
Unless the photos intention is to draw attention to weirdly shaped bokeh balls…. Anything that distracts the eye from the subject is bad. I mean the photographer can have lower standards and live with it but I don’t think it is subjective that the cut bokeh balls are bad.
We are not even pixel peeping or comparing corner sharpness at f1.4… the cut bokeh balls is literally so obvious… it is like the princess sleeping on a durian not a pea. U must be blind not to see it.
My secondary point is that the problem is easily avoided without having to use something other than EFCS. One can either go up three stops on ISO to 800, reducing the shutter speed to 1/800th of a second. Or one can use an ND filter to achieve the same or similar shutter speed. Problem solved. In my view, it is very excessive to use a rare and easily managed problem like this as a reason to not use EFCS or to not use a camera that relies on it.
You of course are entitled to your rules for your own photographs and I think you should feel free to use or not use any camera you like. But I am not sure that the photographer who took this picture cares about your rules.
I am curious what Mark Galer might say about the bokeh in this image. I certainly don't know, but I suspect from what he has said elsewhere that he might say that he didn't really care about the cut off bokeh balls, that the image was still lovely and striking, and that he understood that other people might think differently about it. Or perhaps he would hate the cut-off balls. I'm sure at some point he must have discussed this, but I haven't found it and he really didn't raise it in his discussion of bokeh and EFCS in the video that I linked.
Anyway, a perfectly round and transparent bokeh ball is also an artificial optical effect that doesn't match, as far as I can tell, the way our eyes and brain actually see. The desire for a round and transparent bokeh ball is really not a rule, it is a convention that many people share.
Indeed. I edited my post to remove my dumbness or brain fart or whatever it was. Thank you!
Aug 31, 2023 at 09:04 PM
p.4 #11Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
tsdevine wrote:
Yeah, you'd choose the lowest ISO and use an ND.
Sometime take a look at how many of Cartier-Bresson's photographs have poor focus or subject movement. Doesn't seem to have held him back.
Of course, you and everyone else are entitled to their own opinions on this. For someone wtih your opinions, the fix would be to simply use an ND filter or different ISO to lower the shutter speed three or four stops.I don’t think this is actually subjective…. There are commonly accepted standards as to what is a good photo and what is a bad one….
Unless the photos intention is to draw attention to weirdly shaped bokeh balls…. Anything that distracts the eye from the subject is bad. I mean the photographer can have lower standards and live with it but I don’t think it is subjective that the cut bokeh balls are bad.
We are not even pixel peeping or comparing corner sharpness at f1.4… the cut bokeh balls is literally so obvious… it is like the princess sleeping on a durian not a pea. U must be blind not to see it.I see it. I don't particularly care about it, nor is it what draws my attention in the photograph. But my main point is that it does not ruin the photograph for the photographer, who posted it specifically as an example of what he likes about the bokeh and rendering of the 50mm/1.2 GM.
My secondary point is that the problem is easily avoided without having to use something other than EFCS. One can either go up three stops on ISO to 800, reducing the shutter speed to 1/800th of a second. Or one can use an ND filter to achieve the same or similar shutter speed. Problem solved. In my view, it is very excessive to use a rare and easily managed problem like this as a reason to not use EFCS or to not use a camera that relies on it.
You of course are entitled to your rules for your own photographs and I think you should feel free to use or not use any camera you like. But I am not sure that the photographer who took this picture cares about your rules.
I am curious what Mark Galer might say about the bokeh in this image. I certainly don't know, but I suspect from what he has said elsewhere that he might say that he didn't really care about the cut off bokeh balls, that the image was still lovely and striking, and that he understood that other people might think differently about it. Or perhaps he would hate the cut-off balls. I'm sure at some point he must have discussed this, but I haven't found it and he really didn't raise it in his discussion of bokeh and EFCS in the video that I linked.
Anyway, a perfectly round and transparent bokeh ball is also an artificial optical effect that doesn't match, as far as I can tell, the way our eyes and brain actually see. The desire for a round and transparent bokeh ball is really not a rule, it is a convention that many people share.Of course you are right. You'd need the ND filter.
I guess that if he wanted to or didn't have an ND filter he also could use the extended ISO range of his A1 to go down to 50 on the ISO and then overexpose by one stop or one and a third stops of shutter speed. That would get him to 1/1600th sec or less which might eliminate the cut-off bokeh and still let him pull back the highlights in PP.
Yeah, you'd choose the lowest ISO and use an ND.
chiron wrote
tsdevine wrote
Going up 3 stops isn't going to give you a slower shutter speed, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.chiron wrote
wind30 wrote
chiron wrote
The photographer posted these specifically as examples of what he likes about the rendering and bokeh of the 50/1.2 GM. For him, the photographs are not ruined but excellent. And your problem with the images is not the main thing that I would respond to in either photograph. But yes, they are bokeh effects. That's why I mention The Princess and the Pea.Sometime take a look at how many of Cartier-Bresson's photographs have poor focus or subject movement. Doesn't seem to have held him back.
Of course, you and everyone else are entitled to their own opinions on this. For someone wtih your opinions, the fix would be to simply use an ND filter or different ISO to lower the shutter speed three or four stops.
Unless the photos intention is to draw attention to weirdly shaped bokeh balls…. Anything that distracts the eye from the subject is bad. I mean the photographer can have lower standards and live with it but I don’t think it is subjective that the cut bokeh balls are bad.
We are not even pixel peeping or comparing corner sharpness at f1.4… the cut bokeh balls is literally so obvious… it is like the princess sleeping on a durian not a pea. U must be blind not to see it.
My secondary point is that the problem is easily avoided without having to use something other than EFCS. One can either go up three stops on ISO to 800, reducing the shutter speed to 1/800th of a second. Or one can use an ND filter to achieve the same or similar shutter speed. Problem solved. In my view, it is very excessive to use a rare and easily managed problem like this as a reason to not use EFCS or to not use a camera that relies on it.
You of course are entitled to your rules for your own photographs and I think you should feel free to use or not use any camera you like. But I am not sure that the photographer who took this picture cares about your rules.
I am curious what Mark Galer might say about the bokeh in this image. I certainly don't know, but I suspect from what he has said elsewhere that he might say that he didn't really care about the cut off bokeh balls, that the image was still lovely and striking, and that he understood that other people might think differently about it. Or perhaps he would hate the cut-off balls. I'm sure at some point he must have discussed this, but I haven't found it and he really didn't raise it in his discussion of bokeh and EFCS in the video that I linked.
Anyway, a perfectly round and transparent bokeh ball is also an artificial optical effect that doesn't match, as far as I can tell, the way our eyes and brain actually see. The desire for a round and transparent bokeh ball is really not a rule, it is a convention that many people share.
I guess that if he wanted to or didn't have an ND filter he also could use the extended ISO range of his A1 to go down to 50 on the ISO and then overexpose by one stop or one and a third stops of shutter speed. That would get him to 1/1600th sec or less which might eliminate the cut-off bokeh and still let him pull back the highlights in PP.
Aug 31, 2023 at 09:23 PM
p.4 #12Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
chiron wrote:
The photographer posted these specifically as examples of what he likes about the rendering and bokeh of the 50/1.2 GM. For him, the photographs are not ruined but excellent. And your problem with the images is not the main thing that I would respond to in either photograph. But yes, they are bokeh effects. That's why I mention The Princess and the Pea.
Sometime take a look at how many of Cartier-Bresson's photographs have poor focus or subject movement. Doesn't seem to have held him back.
Of course, you and everyone else are entitled to their own opinions on this. For someone...Show more →
I personally don't have anything against those cut circles. Maybe one day they will acquire that retro classic flavor, like zeiss' buzz-saw bubbes... I got Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/135 C/Y for that, like that
https://live.staticflickr.com/7874/46463641981_25ca291baf_3k.jpg
The photographer posted these specifically as examples of what he likes about the rendering and bokeh of the 50/1.2 GM. For him, the photographs are not ruined but excellent. And your problem with the images is not the main thing that I would respond to in either photograph. But yes, they are bokeh effects. That's why I mention The Princess and the Pea.
Sometime take a look at how many of Cartier-Bresson's photographs have poor focus or subject movement. Doesn't seem to have held him back.
Of course, you and everyone else are entitled to their own opinions on this. For someone...Show more →
I personally don't have anything against those cut circles. Maybe one day they will acquire that retro classic flavor, like zeiss' buzz-saw bubbes... I got Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/135 C/Y for that, like that
https://live.staticflickr.com/7874/46463641981_25ca291baf_3k.jpg
Aug 31, 2023 at 09:59 PM
p.4 #13Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
gunmetal wrote:
jeffbuzz wrote
gunmetal wrote
jeffbuzz wrote
Is it a problem? You decide.Both cameras still seem like fantastic travel and landscape cameras to me. But I'm open to the fact that I could be missing something.
Why not? I have two card slots on my R6 and Z5 but often times I only use one of the slots. And I use HSS on my flash.
Sep 01, 2023 at 12:21 AM
p.4 #14Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
chiron wrote:
I guess that if he wanted to or didn't have an ND filter he also could use the extended ISO range of his A1 to go down to 50 on the ISO and then overexpose by one stop or one and a third stops of shutter speed. That would get him to 1/1600th sec or less which might eliminate the cut-off bokeh and still let him pull back the highlights in PP.
Hmm, I think this goes against the principle of ETTR. You can't really recover clipped highlights as you can shadows when properly exposed (ETTR).
Also, shooting at ISO50 is equivalent to shooting at ISO100 +1EC, on Sony cameras at least, so in the end you unfortunately give up those clipped highlights either way...
I guess that if he wanted to or didn't have an ND filter he also could use the extended ISO range of his A1 to go down to 50 on the ISO and then overexpose by one stop or one and a third stops of shutter speed. That would get him to 1/1600th sec or less which might eliminate the cut-off bokeh and still let him pull back the highlights in PP.
Hmm, I think this goes against the principle of ETTR. You can't really recover clipped highlights as you can shadows when properly exposed (ETTR).
Also, shooting at ISO50 is equivalent to shooting at ISO100 +1EC, on Sony cameras at least, so in the end you unfortunately give up those clipped highlights either way...
Sep 01, 2023 at 02:32 AM
p.4 #15Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
Magnetic ND’s are the answer. I was watching Julia Trottis a7cR review and she was shooting very sunny backlit portraits against foliage with the 35 & 85 GM’s wide open up to 1/2500 and there were no issues with the bokeh. After initial concerns I’m good with this - at least it’s not electronic only with that awful rolling shutter 
. 😂 I always have ND’s anyway since I shoot photos and video and I usually don’t take them off when shooting stills.
Chris
. 😂 I always have ND’s anyway since I shoot photos and video and I usually don’t take them off when shooting stills. Chris
Sep 01, 2023 at 05:22 AM
p.4 #16Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
Okay I’m shooting a 200 f2 lens and I’m going to reach for a ND filter. That is not cutting the cheese. Sorry
If that’s what you face all the times get a camera that can handle this stuff. From my seat I have to have a mechanical shutter as I face all kinds of stuff not just this EFSC stuff. LEDS/ flash/ anti flicker and so on and without a mechanical shutter you’re screwed. I work for others and they may hate this EFSC truncated look.
If that’s what you face all the times get a camera that can handle this stuff. From my seat I have to have a mechanical shutter as I face all kinds of stuff not just this EFSC stuff. LEDS/ flash/ anti flicker and so on and without a mechanical shutter you’re screwed. I work for others and they may hate this EFSC truncated look.
Sep 01, 2023 at 05:33 AM
p.4 #17Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
It's only a matter of time before Sony releases its AI "cut bokeh" compensation for EFCS in the camera. Of course, the feature will only be available on new cameras and not for any existing C series cameras.
Sep 01, 2023 at 06:21 AM
p.4 #18Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
joychris wrote:
Magnetic ND’s are the answer. I was watching Julia Trottis a7cR review and she was shooting very sunny backlit portraits against foliage with the 35 & 85 GM’s wide open up to 1/2500 and there were no issues with the bokeh. After initial concerns I’m good with this - at least it’s not electronic only with that awful rolling shutter. 😂 I always have ND’s anyway since I shoot photos and video and I usually don’t take them off when shooting stills.
Chris
I think it is Freewell that makes a nice magnetic filter set. I think that is what Galer uses.
Magnetic ND’s are the answer. I was watching Julia Trottis a7cR review and she was shooting very sunny backlit portraits against foliage with the 35 & 85 GM’s wide open up to 1/2500 and there were no issues with the bokeh. After initial concerns I’m good with this - at least it’s not electronic only with that awful rolling shutter
. 😂 I always have ND’s anyway since I shoot photos and video and I usually don’t take them off when shooting stills. Chris
I think it is Freewell that makes a nice magnetic filter set. I think that is what Galer uses.
Sep 01, 2023 at 06:25 AM
p.4 #19Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
lensfan wrote:
Sometime take a look at how many of Cartier-Bresson's photographs have poor focus or subject movement. Doesn't seem to have held him back.
Of course, you and everyone else are entitled to their own opinions on this. For someone wtih your opinions, the fix would be to simply use an ND filter or different ISO to lower the shutter speed three or four stops.I personally don't have anything against those cut circles. Maybe one day they will acquire that retro classic flavor, like zeiss' buzz-saw bubbes... I got Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/135 C/Y for that, like that
https://live.staticflickr.com/7874/46463641981_25ca291baf_3k.jpg
Cool shot!
chiron wrote
The photographer posted these specifically as examples of what he likes about the rendering and bokeh of the 50/1.2 GM. For him, the photographs are not ruined but excellent. And your problem with the images is not the main thing that I would respond to in either photograph. But yes, they are bokeh effects. That's why I mention The Princess and the Pea.Sometime take a look at how many of Cartier-Bresson's photographs have poor focus or subject movement. Doesn't seem to have held him back.
Of course, you and everyone else are entitled to their own opinions on this. For someone wtih your opinions, the fix would be to simply use an ND filter or different ISO to lower the shutter speed three or four stops.
https://live.staticflickr.com/7874/46463641981_25ca291baf_3k.jpg
Cool shot!
Sep 01, 2023 at 06:26 AM
p.4 #20Mark Galer's Video on EFCS On-or-Off
GMPhotography wrote:
Okay I’m shooting a 200 f2 lens and I’m going to reach for a ND filter. That is not cutting the cheese. Sorry
If that’s what you face all the times get a camera that can handle this stuff. From my seat I have to have a mechanical shutter as I face all kinds of stuff not just this EFSC stuff. LEDS/ flash/ anti flicker and so on and without a mechanical shutter you’re screwed. I work for others and they may hate this EFSC truncated look.
If you’re shooting a 200/2 this isn’t the right camera for the job! I don’t get all these doomsday scenarios people keep conjuring up with the a7c’s specs. If you want to shoot your 1.2 glass in midday sun and don’t want to ND your SS, just use a different body. It’s not complicated. Same goes for all the whining about the crappy EVF, the flip LCD and so on. Just don’t buy it and move on.
Chris
Okay I’m shooting a 200 f2 lens and I’m going to reach for a ND filter. That is not cutting the cheese. Sorry
If that’s what you face all the times get a camera that can handle this stuff. From my seat I have to have a mechanical shutter as I face all kinds of stuff not just this EFSC stuff. LEDS/ flash/ anti flicker and so on and without a mechanical shutter you’re screwed. I work for others and they may hate this EFSC truncated look.
If you’re shooting a 200/2 this isn’t the right camera for the job
! I don’t get all these doomsday scenarios people keep conjuring up with the a7c’s specs. If you want to shoot your 1.2 glass in midday sun and don’t want to ND your SS, just use a different body. It’s not complicated. Same goes for all the whining about the crappy EVF, the flip LCD and so on. Just don’t buy it and move on. Chris
Sep 01, 2023 at 06:41 AM