GabrielPhoto
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Is the 35mm 1.8 really that bad at mid distance Bokeh? | |
JohanEickmeyer wrote:
GabrielPhoto wrote:
JohanEickmeyer wrote:
I guess I have to be the one person who points out that the small differences in bokeh rendering only matter to people who obsess over bokeh rendering.
So just because someone else can see things that do not bother you it means they are "obsessed"? Could it maybe be that other people have different needs than you do ??
I never understood this attitude of if something does not affect me or does not matter to me, then everyone that is affected by it is just obsessed, pixel peeper, etc.
By all means, I'm not a very good photographer, and my bar for image quality isn't very high. I shoot APS-C and a cell phone, which is terrible for a landscape photographer.
But, there is no doubt that photography is slipping into the depths where audiophiles are found. When gear keeps getting better and better, the effort put into finding the best becomes a bit of an obsession for some. Sure some are also self-aware that their wants are way beyond needs, but that's part of the fun. Tinkering and testing is fun. But, I do think it may pursued others to go along with the flow and become hyper-critical of things that probably didn't bother them until they found out about them.
Besides bokeh rendering, we've also seen where anything less than 60MP is insufficient for landscape photos. Or anything less than 20 FPS is useless for birds in flight. Or how AA filters destroy details and ruin images. Or only fast aperture lenses are suitable for professional work.
In the audiophile world, things have progressed so far beyond the needs that improvements in gear can only be found through machines, not ears.
By all means, I'm not a very good photographer, and my bar for image quality isn't very high. I shoot APS-C and a cell phone, which is terrible for a landscape photographer.
First I would never dare imply that you or anyone is a bad photographer. I said things that do not bother you. This could vary not only per person but situation. For example, when travelling I rather take my RX10 IV because I know that for what I will be doing with the photos (if not destination job) the RX10 IV will be more than enough.
t, there is no doubt that photography is slipping into the depths where audiophiles are found. When gear keeps getting better and better, the effort put into finding the best becomes a bit of an obsession for some. Sure some are also self-aware that their wants are way beyond needs, but that's part of the fun. Tinkering and testing is fun. But, I do think it may pursued others to go along with the flow and become hyper-critical of things that probably didn't bother them until they found out about them.
The big difference between audiophiles (I was on the audio industry years ago) and the bokeh we are discussing here is that this can easily be seen where many of the issues with audiophiles is that they can only tell the differences as long as they can see the gear that is being compared. This is more specifically happening during magical power cords, cables etc. The moment a blind test is done, their hearing powers go away.
Of course, some people will always take things to extreme when they dont really need it and that goes for pretty much anything out there. But also you have to consider that things that "did not bother them until they find out" could also be part of growth. If some is really into this craft, the more you learn the more you notice things, small details that you never noticed before and those small details pile up and create a jump elevating your work to a whole new level.
Besides bokeh rendering, we've also seen where anything less than 60MP is insufficient for landscape photos. Or anything less than 20 FPS is useless for birds in flight.
Where exactly have you seen this? Just because some random people make bogus statements like that it suddenly becomes a fact or common accepted knowledge? Far from it.
Or how AA filters destroy details and ruin images. Or only fast aperture lenses are suitable for professional work.
Too much hyperbole here. Destroy details and ruin images? Really, where have you read that exactly?? It clearly affects detail and that is a fact but from there to destroy and ruin images that is way too much and again, I doubt any or at least a good chunk of photographers will make such a statement.
In the audiophile world, things have progressed so far beyond the needs that improvements in gear can only be found through machines, not ears.
Yes indeed and when someone tells me they need to blow up a detail 200, 300 or 300 times to see a pixel difference, I put it in the same realm but we are not talking about that at all. The bokeh we were discussing is clearly visible even on my phone screen. Completely different things.
Regards
|
