| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/17/2005 08:15:52 AM · #1 |
Did you notice that the top 6 finishers were taken with Canon cameras - and the top 3 with a Canon EOS-300D Rebel? Do you think this ironic? Do you think the mechanics of a camera contributes more to the quality of a picture than what is typically said?
Personally, this opens up a can of worms. I am working with the Minolta Z1 and at times I am frustrated in my efforts to achieve a higher level of photography ... |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 08:19:37 AM · #2 |
| I have a Canon PowerShot... This is a very basic camera and I couldn't manage a good bokeh shot at all! Maybe the higher end Canon's are just better at capturing a Bokeh shot? |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 08:23:50 AM · #3 |
It's pure math. There are more Rebels owned than pretty much any other camera (I'd say not just on this site but probably in North America right now). Canon selling the most cameras is explanation enough as to why there are so many in the challenges.
Most of the mid-range scorers are probably all rebel users, too :-) |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 08:26:13 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by Jeileen:
Do you think the mechanics of a camera contributes more to the quality of a picture than what is typically said?
|
No. That is my answer and I own one. What the statistics are telling you is that getting good bokeh is more easily acheived usind a DSLR and the most comon DSLR on this site just happens to be the Rebel with 2180 owners.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 08:26:37 AM · #5 |
| Also, there are some smaller, lower-end challenges that simply will not "do" bokeh. My sony s30 wouldn't produce anything close no matter how hard I tried. It seems to be easier with cameras that allow for more control, and the such. |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 08:31:22 AM · #6 |
It is easier with cameras that use bigger sensors and longer lenses.
My bokeh photo  for example,
was taken with the D70 (APS size sensor), a 200mm focal length (acts like 300mm on the D70), a f2.8 aperture and a focus distance of about 1.5m or less. This created a DOF of a few millimeters, that's about 5/1000 of a metre and a metre is about 3 feet. I was surprised that there was anything in focus at all.
Message edited by author 2005-01-17 13:35:19.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 08:40:20 AM · #7 |
It has nothing to do with the camera body. (Although sensor size does have some affect on bokeh). While the Rebel is a great camera, it's all about the lens. With longer lenses and larger apertures it is easier to control the DOF of an image and create bokeh. The quality of bokeh is generally a function of the quality of the lens, namely, the number of blades in their diaphragm. More blades in the diaphragm generally produce more "round" bokeh, which is the most pleasing.
Message edited by author 2005-01-17 13:42:35. |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 09:09:24 AM · #8 |
| ANY camera could have produced a good shot for Bokeh. If I get a chance tonight, I'll prove it with my daughter's Powershot A60. |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 09:12:38 AM · #9 |
you might just need to have the BG a mile or so away to get a decent blur... ;}
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 09:15:53 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Ezra:
(Although sensor size does have some affect on bokeh). |
Not even a little bit.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 09:16:50 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by soup:
you might just need to have the BG a mile or so away to get a decent blur... ;} |
That's ONE possibility. ;-) |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 09:19:31 AM · #12 |
gausian blur a photo of christmas lights, print it, and back light it.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 09:20:52 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Ezra:
(Although sensor size does have some affect on bokeh). |
Not even a little bit. |
It was more a thought in the line of:
A camera with a 1/1.7" sensor uses a 6-20mm wideangle and how wider the angle the harder to create shallow dof and you need shallow dof to look at the bokeh of the lens.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 09:21:44 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Ezra:
(Although sensor size does have some affect on bokeh). |
Not even a little bit. |
It was more a thought in the line of:
A camera with a 1/1.7" sensor uses a 6-20mm wideangle and how wider the angle the harder to create shallow dof and you need shallow dof to look at the bokeh of the lens. |
That works better.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 09:23:08 AM · #15 |
Hmmm... wonder if I could replicate mine (or something similar) with my "Old" Sony Mavica 1.3MP FD-88.
Maybe I should charge the battery first after it being on the shelf for the 2 years or so. May have to search around for a floppy too!
(edit to add: Battery IS now on charge and am gonna' have fun trying)
LOL
Message edited by author 2005-01-17 14:36:43.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 09:28:19 AM · #16 |
it's not so much the wide angle, but the actual aperture size ( which is related to the focal length of the lense - which is short on a P&S cam ). even at f:2 the aperture on a point and shoot is tiny, therefore deep depth of field, hard to get bokeh. even a 10x optical zoom on a point and shoot still has a rather short focal length, therefore a rather small aperture at any given zoom.
correct me if am wrong.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 09:32:55 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
ANY camera could have produced a good shot for Bokeh. If I get a chance tonight, I'll prove it with my daughter's Powershot A60. |
no, not any camera. I tried several different methods with our "little" camera, just to see. The A60 has manual focus capability, correct? That might help. If I had really wanted to use the smaller camera, any bokeh effect would have had to be done in postprocessing. |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 09:34:02 AM · #18 |
Oops. I just made a mistake. I'm new to the forums, and I meant to post a reply to nsbca7, but I accidentally reported the post... I have absolutely no gripe with what nsbca7 wrote. He is absolutely right. I think Azrifel explained what I meant.
Message edited by author 2005-01-17 14:37:48. |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 09:46:20 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by karmat:
no, not any camera. |
Yes, ANY camera. Where there's a will, there's a way. |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 09:56:02 AM · #20 |
| I have a littel Yashica T2 with a Ziess lens. It is a point and shoot with a fixed 35 mm lens, but it has sweeter bokeh than most of my SLR lenses. Go figure. |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 09:57:45 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by karmat:
no, not any camera. |
Yes, ANY camera. Where there's a will, there's a way. |
Okay, ANY camera but the Sony DSC S30. :-)
Of course, it could be my definition of bokeh. Just having a blurry background doesn't cut it (though that is sometimes hit and miss, too, with this camera). I want to see lens aberrations, the whole nine yards. |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 10:01:04 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by soup:
it's not so much the wide angle, but the actual aperture size ( which is related to the focal length of the lense - which is short on a P&S cam ). even at f:2 the aperture on a point and shoot is tiny, therefore deep depth of field, hard to get bokeh. even a 10x optical zoom on a point and shoot still has a rather short focal length, therefore a rather small aperture at any given zoom.
correct me if am wrong. |
You are wrong. It is the wide angle or short focal length part of the equation that screws the short DOF. f/2 at 50mm is enough to get descent bokeh on any 35mm camera, provided the 50mm on the camera is a true 50 and not some BS effective 50mm.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 10:01:49 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by Jeileen:
Do you think the mechanics of a camera contributes more to the quality of a picture than what is typically said? |
I'm unsure of what is 'typically said', but I am sure that the mechanics of a camera quite definitely contribute a lot to the quality of a picture both extrinsically (amount of noise, camera shake on shutter slap, light leaks) and intrinsically (the control given to a skilled photographer).
Message edited by author 2005-01-17 15:02:56.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 11:13:32 AM · #24 |
This was achived achived with a simple point and shoot.
I just used a different method... |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 11:40:50 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by soup:
you might just need to have the BG a mile or so away to get a decent blur... ;} |
This shot was made with a p&s, and the BG was very close. Also, I didn't even use the widest aperture, not even close to the widest. I couldn't use the widest aperture because I zoomed in a little. I used manual focus.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/08/2025 02:16:29 PM EDT.
