[Aristophanes]

I would argue that expecting a standard prime to provide soft backgrounds is a niche requirement. When I started out photography (in the 70s on a rangefinder) - I would reach out for a standard prime for speed, not bokeh. Indeed, the bokeh of most standard primes is rather harsh. If I want soft blurry backgrounds, I would go for a telephoto.

That's an interesting and oft overlooked point.

In the way back machine things like bokeh and background separation and blur were important, but somehow had less relevance then than now. I think it is the 4x6 print versus the full screen 21" monitor + 100% crops that makes the difference. We see the bokeh more because it is so much easier to blow the image up to large size. This technique has increased bokeh as an aesthetic consideration all around.

But the point about using a tele is bang on. Every big name photog I have seen (and I personally know a couple) rely on their telephotos for bokeh and background, ensuring proper separation between subject and background. They don't mess around with fussy little in your face primes. They load a 70-200/2.8 shoot f/5.6 at 180mm and get some distance for soft backgrounds and smooth bokeh. Almost any long optic will do that. We'll have to see what the Q options are in that respect.

The bird guys do this constantly and better than anyone. Come out snipes! Show yourselves.

[Art Vandelay II]

Ugh. How wrong you are. I think [hope?] most people are over the bokeh cancer.

It's not the reason I bought my DSLRs, nor anything I particularly value in using my Fuji F200EXR point-and-shoot or my NEX-5. Indeed, I particularly value my Fuji point-and-shoot for the fact that it has massive DOF.

Indeed they may. But shooting wide open and aiming for bokeh isn't about image quality.

There's a reason I chose not to use the term bokeh. I didn't want to get started on another anti-bokeh thread (they are becoming quite common these days). When I mentioned image quality I meant dynamic range, noise control, greater resolutions, and yes the versatility DOF control gives you. I rarely ever use tons of shallow DOF myself, but a slight background blur + good composition can give a photo a slight 3D look unachievable with small sensors.

If someone can explain to me why a street portrait like this one would be better with a sharp background then I'm all ears:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fabiolanotte/294666238/

Shallow DOF shouldn't be a crutch for poor composition, but it is a wonderful tool to have when you need it (such as to blur out an unwanted person/object from a background).

[Aristophanes]

Like every enthusiast photographer, I've been striving for fast glass and big sensor/film to achieve shallow DoF. In the process, I realized almost all of my photos were taken at medium-to-small apertures, I've been aiming for as much DoF as possible, while still being hand-holdable (meaning, bigger sensors are actually a disadvantage), I'm not printing photos bigger than A4 size, and that most used camera was my phone camera (being the best made at that time, that wasn't a problem - SonyEricsson K800i). Also, I realized my bigger cameras constantly got left at home. Recently I switched to HTC Android-based smart phone, I'm using it's camera and numerous camera apps constantly, and I'm amazed how good pictures it can spit out, with only three controls left for me - exposure compensation, ISO and spot metering. If Pentax Q, with full controls and raw output, can match smart-phone image quality, I'm buying it as soon as wide(r) fast lens becomes available.

C'mon!

Wimpy little cameraphone. Man up and get a real camera that shoots real RAW and $50 less than the Q:

FS: Beautiful Bronica ETRS Kit with 2 lenses and many extras

[jsherman999]

...
I would argue that expecting a standard prime to provide soft backgrounds is a niche requirement. When I started out photography (in the 70s on a rangefinder) - I would reach out for a standard prime for speed, not bokeh. Indeed, the bokeh of most standard primes is rather harsh.

Yes, it certainly can be. Subject isolation, however, is a nice option to have at 'normal' focal lengths, regardless of quality of bokeh.


.

If I want soft blurry backgrounds, I would go for a telephoto.

If you're far enough away from the subject and that 'Q' telephoto has a large enough max aperture, anything's possible.


Anyway, subject isolation is only one tool of many. Granted we're probably just as often shooting in situations where DOF control is meaningless....


In honor of this thread I shot a bit with my iphone 3G today! (much worse camera than the iphone 4, but my wife somehow justified that upgrade, I haven't yet )


.











.
This iphone 3G sensor and lens isn't very good, but I honestly think camera phones and other device-embedded phones that come along will keep getting better and better, and very quickly. The 4G is a much better photo device already, for example.


.

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 07-11-2011 at 10:36 PM.

[Christine Tham]

There's a reason I chose not to use the term bokeh. I didn't want to get started on another anti-bokeh thread (they are becoming quite common these days). When I mentioned image quality I meant dynamic range, noise control, greater resolutions, and yes the versatility DOF control gives you. I rarely ever use tons of shallow DOF myself, but a slight background blur + good composition can give a photo a slight 3D look unachievable with small sensors.

If someone can explain to me why a street portrait like this one would be better with a sharp background then I'm all ears:
Untitled | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Shallow DOF shouldn't be a crutch for poor composition, but it is a wonderful tool to have when you need it (such as to blur out an unwanted person/object from a background).

The problem is you are confusing between bokeh and DOF, and expressing a bokeh requirement ("soft blurry backgrounds") as a DOF requirement.

bokeh and DOF are different concepts. DOF is about how much a picture is in focus vs out of focus. bokeh is the quality of the out of focus rendition.

It is possible for a lens with good bokeh at f8 to give a much "nicer" picture than a lens with poor bokeh at f4 or even f2.

The picture you linked to could potentially have been rendered by a lens at f8 - it all depends on the the relative distance between photographer and subject, and how well the lens render bokeh. Some lenses will "exaggerate" bokeh, some play it down - it depends on the lens design.

So I am not willing to assume that the Q will not be able to render bokeh well - it all depends on the lens design and Pentax had 5 years to play with the design.

As for the Q being a "high DOF" camera - with all due respect I would caution against making naive assumptions based on sensor size which a few posters seem to be doing.

As I've mentioned before, DOF depends on the circle of confusion (CoC), not sensor size. CoC is a subjective measure, not objective, and depends on many things.

A lot of DOF calculators on the Internet assume CoC = d/1730 (the Zeiss formula) but this formula is quite naive. The CoC actually depends on interpixel spacing and the effective width of each pixel - Pentax has not yet given us this information so we don't know whether the Zeiss formula is a good approximation or not.

Secondly, some people are using a full frame DSLR as a frame of reference (CoC=0.025). However, I would argue a 35mm film camera is a better frame of reference (typical CoC = 0.030-0.035)

So, even if we assume the Zeiss formula is applicable to the Q (and I have reasons to suspect it doesn't) the Q with the standard prime is not equivalent to a full frame standard prime at f11, but more like f8, and potentially lower.

And there is every possibility Pentax may have tweaked the Q lens design for shallower DOF, so it's quite possible the "equivalency" is f4-f8.

I typically shoot on my K-5 with FA43 at f4-f8, so it's entirely possible that the Q will be roughly equivalent from a DOF perspective.

Note - this is all speculation on my part, but it's based on reasonable assumptions, unlike some of the rampant speculation by armchair experts on this forum.

The real test is when we get to play with a real camera and take real pictures. Until then, I maintain - speculation about the image quality and DOF of the Q is just speculation.

[eddie1960]

C'mon!

Wimpy little cameraphone. Man up and get a real camera that shoots real RAW and $50 less than the Q:

FS: Beautiful Bronica ETRS Kit with 2 lenses and many extras

Bah too much i got the etrsi and 4lenses 2finders a meter and 3backs for the price of the q
And due to its size it sits home most of the time (real raw haha thanks ken)

Edit - now that i'm on a computer i'll add that's in really really good shape so $625 is a pretty good deal (i could use the dark slide case but have everything else there so not for me

[Art Vandelay II]

The problem is you are confusing between bokeh and DOF, and expressing a bokeh requirement ("soft blurry backgrounds") as a DOF requirement.

No; I'm not. I know exactly what bokeh means. Again, that is why I chose to say soft backgrounds; which means exactly that, soft backgrounds. I did not want to delve into quality of the out of focus regions.

As far as the rest of that post, well, there's a first time for everything, and the Q will certainly have to be the first small sensor camera ever to give background separation. Every small sensor camera I've ever owned or used only produced shallow DOF in macro mode; and even then it was just ok. For the record, I've actually owned quite a few small sensor cameras now in my quest to find the perfect street shooter, this is why I am so negative towards them now. The false rumors of a mirrorless Pentax APS-C camera probably didn't help either.

[jsherman999]

...
A lot of DOF calculators on the Internet assume CoC = d/1730 (the Zeiss formula) but this formula is quite naive. The CoC actually depends on interpixel spacing and the effective width of each pixel - Pentax has not yet given us this information so we don't know whether the Zeiss formula is a good approximation or not.

We know the sensor dimensions/area and the pixel count. Are you suggesting some new 'interpixel spacing and effective width of each pixel' will be shoehorned in there!?!

So, even if we assume the Zeiss formula is applicable to the Q (and I have reasons to suspect it doesn't)

What are those reasons?




.

[ogl]

You Tube

You Tube

rather slow AF

[Kenn100D]

YouTube - ‪PENTAX Q (Digital Mirrorless) : Touch & Try Event‬‏


rather slow AF

It is still beta firmware ogl, Not yet consumer build. That's why there is no sample from the Q website.

[ogl]

It is still beta firmware ogl, Not yet consumer build. That's why there is no sample from the Q website.

The time will answer us

[Kenn100D]

The time will answer us

Yes you're right. Until then we just hope there is more from Ricoh. Now M-Mount hopefully K-Mount on GXR.

[eddie1960]

Yes you're right. Until then we just hope there is more from Ricoh. Now M-Mount hopefully K-Mount on GXR.

the m mount gives you k mount on the GXR (manual not auto) todays pics showed it with an old ricoh 50mm f1.2 k mount on the body (with appropriate adapter of course)

[Kenn100D]

the m mount gives you k mount on the GXR (manual not auto) todays pics showed it with an old ricoh 50mm f1.2 k mount on the body (with appropriate adapter of course)

But much better if it has a dedicated GXR Module. Might be bigger but at least AF is engage.

[eddie1960]

But much better if it has a dedicated GXR Module. Might be bigger but at least AF is engage.

AF is possibly engaged you would hope so but i believe even the shutter created a design issue with the M mount (i'll be very interested to see how that works)
Remember one of the big design things for GXR is the Dustless system. I believe the M module did that by putting in the sealed focal plane shutter assembly